The reason is that they say there a building no matter what. Stadiums can make a profit even without an NFL team playing there.
There's no reason to build a stadium with 80,000 seats unless you're playing some kind of football there, in the USA.
The reason is that they say there a building no matter what. Stadiums can make a profit even without an NFL team playing there.
As opposed to giving up gigantic leverage of threat of building without approval and scrapping plans projected to see revenue well in excess of multiple billions of dollars outside of just football (A-list award shows, the Olympics, World Cup, etc.). Thinking in terms of ROI on the stadium is probably thinking too small. That seems like a much less smart move, if anything.
Not if it's part of the the Olympic plans and other events that they have proposed.
Btw, Sam Farmer's been reporting SK's got the votes to vote down the Carson project, bu also that there likely won't even be a vote. What does that even mean?
Making those videos are pretty cheap and easy, a high school kid could do it. It's a cool video and cool project, but in terms of presentation, its more costly and more impressive when they are going into details, the nuts and bolts of the project, that shows more commitment and understanding.
I'm assuming Carson has that, but they haven't released it as Inglewood has. I don't think Kroenke is trying to win them over with flashy videos, he's showing them the details, which is probably more important anyway.
These videos are for the public, not the owners.
I don't think so, if he was then so would the Carson project, and I don't see it. I think Toronto would be a city that the NFL starts looking at closer, there's quite a bit of money there, and they enjoy their sports. The problem is the NFL wants to be the big show in town, and they're not passing the Leafs in that city. However they can easily fill a stadium anyway.
I'm not sold on San Antonio at all.
Making those videos are pretty cheap and easy, a high school kid could do it. It's a cool video and cool project, but in terms of presentation, its more costly and more impressive when they are going into details, the nuts and bolts of the project, that shows more commitment and understanding.
I'm assuming Carson has that, but they haven't released it as Inglewood has. I don't think Kroenke is trying to win them over with flashy videos, he's showing them the details, which is probably more important anyway.
These videos are for the public, not the owners.
Oakland doesn't have a plan? Interesting.
Saying that it's just a high school animation project that fooled several billionaires at the owners meetings who deal with these things on a daily basis is way too conspiracy theory for me.
So a video with Jack Bauer narrating isn't impressive enough for you? Man, you really want Inglewood, don't you?
As for signs the debate on the Rams not allowing signs in St Louis practices? Oh right you said Demoff was lying when he said it had been Rams policy since what 2009 or 2008? That's right I forgot Demoff's a well known liar.
Isn't that what San Antonio and St Louis did? The Alamo Dome has still made money without an NFL team there and they're willing to build another one.There's no reason to build a stadium with 80,000 seats unless you're playing some kind of football there, in the USA.
Privately funded by Stan Kroenke? A part of the Olympic plans privately funded by Stan with no guarantee of a football team yet. I'm sorry, this seems like a reach.
WOW! They went all Jack Baur on 'em. there is only one thing for Kroenke to do now. CHUCK NORRIS! just remember you heard it here first. LOLSo a video with Jack Bauer narrating isn't impressive enough for you? Man, you really want Inglewood, don't you?
Oakland hasn't even presented a plan. Saint Louis has a plan, has options on the land, has jumped the legal hurdles, and is dedicated to keeping its team even though its current stadium isn't even aged. The land is being razed, the financing is in place, the unions have been bought, the politicians smell the money.
This is like the signs dispute we had where you relied on tweets. I'm here, I see what is going on.
The stadium here WILL be built. I'm giving 70% odds that the Rams, who agree that it is being built for them and have contributed to the planning, will play here.
When did I say they didn't have a plan?
My guess is they decided to enforce them when NFL Network came to practice
Isn't that what San Antonio and St Louis did? The Alamo Dome has still made money without an NFL team there and they're willing to build another one.
I never said NFL, I said Football. Rosebowl gets the bowl game in LA. If you think Stan is going to break up that marriage, then GL.
I disagree, the negative signs would be out there to be seen even if the NFLN wasn't there. If the signs kept to keeping the Rams in town and the fans love their Rams we probably aren't having this talk. But people's hate of Stan was too much and they had to include him in there. You think Fisher, who doesn't want media questioning the players about relocation, wants the players to see those sign, or would he rather them see signs supporting them and the team? One guy on national radio mentioned last night he was cut off from players because after being told to not ask about relocation he told one "I was told not to ask your opinion on relocation so I won't" of course the player talks about it. Now that journalist is cut off.Fixed it for ya.