aristocrat Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: Chargers and Raiders relocated without any such worries. Doubt this will deter future owners. They will just have to be smarter about their public statements. Also, if they simply award a franchise to STL, how doe that work? Who will build them a stadium? It won't be the city of STL. The NFL can sell a franchise to a new owner. The NFL can also pay them a settlement that could cover a stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 I don't see an expansion to Europe any time soon...not even in the next couple of decades. Teams in Canada(Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver)? Sure. But I think the players for the most part, would hate playing for a team in Europe. Adjusting to life in a foreign country, crazy travel schedule, etc... A team in Mexico City...even less likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted October 29, 2021 Author Share Posted October 29, 2021 59 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Chargers and Raiders relocated without any such worries. Doubt this will deter future owners. They will just have to be smarter about their public statements. Also, if they simply award a franchise to STL, how doe that work? Who will build them a stadium? It won't be the city of STL. It wasn't their public statements that are going to do them in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCofNC Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 I think it would be far more likely that a team moves there. This makes me wonder though, did Cleveland pull the same stunt to get a new Browns team back there and we just never heard about it? I could see the Chargers or Rams getting a buy out of sorts to get out of their part of the SoFi stadium deal and go there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillyG Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 On 10/27/2021 at 9:07 PM, Warcodered said: I mean you can't just add one random team. It wouldn't fit equally with the divions. Well, if St. Louis gets an expansion out of it there is always Oakland and San Diego that could pipe in and sue for a team. We all know the NFL would love to have a team in London, perhaps even Mexico. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuvian Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 i will enjoy watching these masters of the universe squirm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 10 hours ago, aristocrat said: The NFL can sell a franchise to a new owner. The NFL can also pay them a settlement that could cover a stadium. the supposition is they would offer a franchise in lieu of a cash settlement 10 hours ago, Big Turk said: It wasn't their public statements that are going to do them in. Sure it is-its what began most of this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted October 30, 2021 Author Share Posted October 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: the supposition is they would offer a franchise in lieu of a cash settlement Sure it is-its what began most of this No, it's the private backwaters dealings that proved their public statements were BS that is going to do them in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Duffy Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 10 hours ago, Big Turk said: It wasn't their public statements that are going to do them in. 16 minutes ago, Big Turk said: No, it's the private backwaters dealings that proved their public statements were BS that is going to do them in. Not that it's very important, but I'm a little confused here. You said it wasn't their public statements that will do them in. Then 2nd post here in bold seems if that's the case then it sounds like it is the public statements. You say the dealings or whatever proved the public statements were BS. If so, then it seems the BS statements is the reason. If BS statements weren't made in the 1st place then it's different right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted October 30, 2021 Author Share Posted October 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said: Not that it's very important, but I'm a little confused here. You said it wasn't their public statements that will do them in. Then 2nd post here in bold seems if that's the case then it sounds like it is the public statements. You say the dealings or whatever proved the public statements were BS. If so, then it seems the BS statements is the reason. If BS statements weren't made in the 1st place then it's different right? The public statements they made would have been fine if evidence didn't come out they were lying and just playing them for fools all along while intending to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Duffy Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Big Turk said: The public statements they made would have been fine if evidence didn't come out they were lying and just playing them for fools all along while intending to move. Yes, in which case those public statements is what did it then. You stated it was not the public statements that did them in. Those statements which turned out to be lies was the start of it. That means ultimately that is what did it right? Not sure if you meant something different when you said the untruthful statements isn't what "did them in" Edited October 30, 2021 by Sheneneh Jenkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted October 30, 2021 Author Share Posted October 30, 2021 9 hours ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said: Yes, in which case those public statements is what did it then. You stated it was not the public statements that did them in. Those statements which turned out to be lies was the start of it. That means ultimately that is what did it right? Not sure if you meant something different when you said the untruthful statements isn't what "did them in" No, the public statements are the same things that are said all the time in all those type of situations..."oh we are trying to work things out", blah blah blah. If that was the case and they were being honest nobody would have done anything. It's because they weren't and it was found out in their backroom dealings/emails/texts, etc that they actively were working against what they said publicly and still used taxpayer dollars to do it that is going to seal their fate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Duffy Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Big Turk said: No, the public statements are the same things that are said all the time in all those type of situations..."oh we are trying to work things out", blah blah blah. If that was the case and they were being honest nobody would have done anything. It's because they weren't and it was found out in their backroom dealings/emails/texts, etc that they actively were working against what they said publicly and still used taxpayer dollars to do it that is going to seal their fate. Lol, ok that's my point. Because the public statements were lies then that means the public statements is what did it. So if they wouldn't have lied in the 1st place nothing would have come of it. So the start of it was the public statement. Whether truth or lies, it was a statement made. So if you say it's not the public statements being the reason for the fall out, then what would you say is the reason? Edited October 30, 2021 by Sheneneh Jenkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 12 hours ago, Big Turk said: No, it's the private backwaters dealings that proved their public statements were BS that is going to do them in. You've made my point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted October 30, 2021 Author Share Posted October 30, 2021 5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: You've made my point. Ehh, I mean it's half a dozen of one and 6 of the other. 6 hours ago, Sheneneh Jenkins said: Lol, ok that's my point. Because the public statements were lies then that means the public statements is what did it. So if they wouldn't have lied in the 1st place nothing would have come of it. So the start of it was the public statement. Whether truth or lies, it was a statement made. So if you say it's not the public statements being the reason for the fall out, then what would you say is the reason? Theoretically yes, but it was their actions to the contrary that caused the problems, not their statements. But I get wh at you are saying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uticaclub Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 On 10/29/2021 at 10:34 AM, No Place To Hyde said: Well, if St. Louis gets an expansion out of it there is always Oakland and San Diego that could pipe in and sue for a team. We all know the NFL would love to have a team in London, perhaps even Mexico. The NFL offered a lot for the Chargers to stay in San Diego, the city didn't want a new stadium and didn't really care about the team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.