Jump to content

Warning for those trying to relocate...St Louis settlement could be in the billions of dollars


Big Turk
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sheneneh Jenkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sheneneh Jenkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...