New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

Then why in the hell did NFLN dedicate an entire freaking segment showing all the bring back the Rams crap?!

They're based in LA. The other big thing is they don't like to highlight their own problems.

 

[RamzFanz]

Then why in the hell did NFLN dedicate an entire freaking segment showing all the bring back the Rams crap?!

NFLN coverage of practise in CA:

Dallas.

Stan and Jerry circle jerking.

Dallas.

Bring back the Rams. Look at all the fans and signs and flags.

Dallas.

Bring back the Rams. Look at all the fans and signs and flags.

Dallas.

Dallas.

 

[VegasRam]

Took a deep breath, enjoyed the view and gave Rodney King a call.
At the end of the day guys, the Rams are getting a new outdoor grass-field stadium.:banana:

 

[dieterbrock]

Then why in the hell did NFLN dedicate an entire freaking segment showing all the bring back the Rams crap?!

Did the Rams control that?

 

[Angry Ram]

They're based in LA. The other big thing is they don't like to highlight their own problems.

Bull. They showed the LA support including that giant ass LOS ANGELES RAMS sign. In fact by showing that, they did show their problem with 3 teams trying for 1 city.

Bring back the Rams. Look at all the fans and signs and flags.

Yup. Not once in St. Louis did I see a fan.

Did the Rams control that?

Don't know. If they did, that's absolute bush league.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm not suprised either. My first comment was in regards to someone saying the signs at Rams camp weren't allowed because of a rule put in place back in 2008 or something. Which isn't true. It's because of the national media.

I agree that they did it due to the national media. I also believe KD when he said it was a rule from back then. They just didn't enforce it until then or maybe they have during select times. I'm going to guess they did it when Stan was about to buy the Rams after Khan's offer but dunno.

Almost all of the signs were respectful. The only one that even bordered on rude was the grinch one. They could have simply not allowed signs like that. They don't allow rude t-shirts, but they don't ban all t-shirts.

Can't decide based on content unless it contains commonly accepted offensive language or something that could reasonably be construed as content that would incite.

My wife worked for the International Sign Association for several years and edited two books (including a Text Book for a Temple University Professor) and a magazine all on sign regulations, legal cases regarding sign regulations and ordinances, design criteria, letter size, the whole bit.

Pretty sure the Rams know at least some of this. And I'm also pretty sure they weren't willing to take the chance that with all the upset fans in the Lou that someone or a group of fans would not try to sue them over the issue. Again, you can regulate size, areas allowed, all kinds of things, but content you cannot.

 

[RamFan503]

It's been argued that this point by Stan may not go over well since the sentiment is derived from his actions rather than anything the fanbase had done.

I would have to think this is mostly the case.

 

[RamFan503]

Let's all take a deep breath and relax.....

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Now stretch. Good. Good.

That's almost scary. I did say ALMOST - right?

 

[RamFan503]

Don't know. If they did, that's absolute bush league.

If they were allowed to, St Louis has bigger issues to overcome - namely the NFL itself.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Then why in the hell did NFLN dedicate an entire freaking segment showing all the bring back the Rams crap?!

If you wanna put on a tin foil hat, you could say they were told by higher ups.

 

[dieterbrock]

Don't know. If they did, that's absolute bush league.

I am confident in believing the Rams had nothing to do with it. They did however have control over the sign issue. Makes perfect sense to me that they wouldnt want the negative publicity of the signs on display during an NFLN segment. The fact they had the rule made it easy, just enforce it.

 

[WillasDad]

Seriously man. "The only thing"? All the work that St Louis has been doing; the support for our team they have demonstrated over the years?

Only telling one side of the argument is ALWAYS going to not only pee pee off the other side but make you look like you're blind to everything but your take.

Everything you said, yeah I get it. It's an emotional topic that requires everybody to use better tact, myself very much included. Having said that, I think you'd agree with me that Sam Farmer reporting that SK has the votes, though not the only side, it is the new thing, which btw I've noticed has been conspicuously never mentioned here. Just saying.

As for the comment on SL hanging their hat, I'm not commenting on anything other than the present stadium matter. It's my opinion that SL is relying on the NFL voting against SK moving to LA to force him to the table. That's all I meant.

 

[Isiah58]

I agree that they did it due to the national media. I also believe KD when he said it was a rule from back then. They just didn't enforce it until then or maybe they have during select times. I'm going to guess they did it when Stan was about to buy the Rams after Khan's offer but dunno.


Can't decide based on content unless it contains commonly accepted offensive language or something that could reasonably be construed as content that would incite.

My wife worked for the International Sign Association for several years and edited two books (including a Text Book for a Temple University Professor) and a magazine all on sign regulations, legal cases regarding sign regulations and ordinances, design criteria, letter size, the whole bit.

Pretty sure the Rams know at least some of this. And I'm also pretty sure they weren't willing to take the chance that with all the upset fans in the Lou that someone or a group of fans would not try to sue them over the issue. Again, you can regulate size, areas allowed, all kinds of things, but content you cannot.

Actually, I think the Rams would be perfectly within their right to censor the signs based on content. The First Amendment applies to Government censorship, not private parties. Any fans at the Rams' practice were guests of the Rams, and the Rams can regulate speech on the premises in this case (which they did) as they see fit, as long as no other laws are broken.

And is anyone really surprised that the Rams didn't want their only appearance on the NFL channel's training camp tour to be focused on the move? Clearly there is no real need to control the display of signs in non-broadcast practices. Rams management can just ignore them when no tv cameras are pointed at them, but the signs on that day were for a national audience and no one should be surprised that the Rams did not want to aid in the promotion of relocation advocacy in their own backyard because it would make them look bad. People may not like it, but no one should be surprised by it.

I think that while the Oxnard practices were calculated events based on the turnout in San Diego last year, I think that the St. Louis brethren can take some comfort that things should start looking up for the people of St. Louis. Over the next few months, more pieces will come together regarding the St. Louis stadium project (financing, resolution of law suits, property acquisition, etc.) with no real newsworthy events re Inglewood coming up. When St. Louis gets to present its updated plan in October, they should be riding a wave of positivity that will make Oxnard a long-forgotten memory. I anticipate a lot of pro-St. Louis news to come out in the next two months, and hopefully this will be further bolstered by success on the field, which can only help rally support.

The one interesting scenario that I have not heard discussed much, but that interests me, is the case where the owners meet in December but no back room agreement is reached, and both Spanos and Kroenke really do have the votes to stop the other one for relocating. What if this happens, and the teams are told that by virtue of the vote that no team is granted permission to relocate to LA in 2016? In this hypothetical, what if the Rams return to St. Louis to play in the dome for the 2016 season but Kroenke, without making any public statements whatsoever, begins construction of the Inglewood project in December as planned? That places Spanos and Goldman Sachs in a difficult position, does it not? The Rams would still be in position to move in 2018, but unless the Carson project also begins construction they would fall at least two years behind Inglewood. Plus, as someone above hinted, Goldman Sachs would have to strongly reconsider their investment if the Inglewood stadium is actually build. They could move forward, but this is a pretty high stakes poker game being played (and one that Kroenke would only undertake if he was prepared to sue the league if necessary). When they vote again at the end of the 2016, Inglewood is half built and only a year away, Carson will have lost a lot of steam, and the fact that St. Louis has a plan in place could be mostly be an afterthought. If the NFL wants a team in Los Angeles, and Kroenke can maintain enough votes to block Carson, then I think he eventually wins the race if he cannot be talked out of the LA project. The key for him is maintaining enough votes to block Carson and having the autonomy to move forward with Inglewood and maintain the headstart he already has achieved.

 

[Sum1]

Bernie was a columnist not a reporter. Sam Farmer is a report more like JT.

I'm aware. I'm talking about their reputation nationally and their style. Bernie and Farmer are highly regarded across the country and work for accuracy. Roggins and Slaten work for reaction and attention.

 

[RamBill]

Balzer:Mark Davis Doesn’t See STL as a Real Fit For Raiders

Long-time St. Louisan Howard Balzer, who’s been covering the NFL for nearly 40 years, joined The Hollywood Casino Press Box on Thursday to discuss the No. 1 topics in St. Louis right now: the future of the Rams.

Listen to Balzer Talk Rams Future

Do you think there's any chance Davis moves the Raiders to St. Louis?

"That's a good question, because after we were done with this conversation...he said to me, 'You know what, that's really great. I'm glad you told me all this.' Then he volunteered...'I just don't see St. Louis as a real fit for the Raiders.' Then I said, 'Well, I bet there were a lot of people who didn't think the Hollywood Rams were a good fit for St. Louis...but this town embraced them and won a Super Bowl.' Then he said, 'the Southwest.' And I said, 'Well there you go with your San Antonio talk.' He said, 'Well they're being pretty aggressive.' And I say, 'The task force here can't be aggressive right now (because they have to convince the NFL the Rams should stay. But if that doesn't happen, they'll be very aggressive. Do you want the No. 21 TV market in the NFL or the 33rd market in the NFL?'

 

[The Ripper]

I'm aware. I'm talking about their reputation nationally and their style. Bernie and Farmer are highly regarded across the country and work for accuracy. Roggins and Slaten work for reaction and attention.

Roggin has been well respected for decades across the country. He's been the lead LA sportscaster since the 80's and has been part of NBC's Olympic broadcasts for about the same amount of time.

 

[Sum1]

Roggin has been well respected for decades across the country. He's been the lead LA sportscaster since the 80's and has been part of NBC's Olympic broadcasts for about the same amount of time.

Super

 

[RamFan503]

Actually, I think the Rams would be perfectly within their right to censor the signs based on content. The First Amendment applies to Government censorship, not private parties. Any fans at the Rams' practice were guests of the Rams, and the Rams can regulate speech on the premises in this case (which they did) as they see fit, as long as no other laws are broken.

If they allow the public to carry signs on their property that could logically be seen by other members of the public, they are not allowed to restrict based on content. Sorry, it has been tried to death with political signs at malls and in front of stores, etc... If they allow them, there are very specific criteria they can control but content is not one of them. That is one of the reasons most stores don't allow it at all anymore.

There was one case I remember where a guy simply carried a sign that was humorously refuting what some protestors had on their signs. They asked the one guy to leave with his sign as they considered it a risk to incite. Even in that case where they followed the basic rule that had been upheld for regulating content, the court ruled that his content was reasonable and therefore couldn't be singled out. It was a lower court but the appeals courts essentially upheld it by finding nothing wrong with how it was tried and ruled upon.

I realize it makes sense that they would be allowed to decide which signs were ok and which were not but the courts have ruled that any place where the public can congregate can be considered public - even if it is private property. You can research it if you want. It's been all the way to the Supreme Court.

I have been pretty heavily briefed on the issue as my wife was constantly talking about the cases and the books she was writing/editing. The text book for the Temple University professor was pretty much ghost written by her. They put his name on it to give it credibility as he had the PhD or Dr. next to his name. She worked for the ISA for 8 years as the executive assistant and did all the photos, research, editing, and most of the writing for their publications.

Many private companies HAVE removed certain signs and individuals with signs and got away with it. But I am not aware of one where the sign carrier lost in the end if he pushed it in court unless the sign contained offensive content or could reasonably incite.

I agree with the rest of what you said and really have spent too much time on this as it is IMO a non-issue. I just have a hard time leaving the sign issues alone as my wife really gets into research and she was constantly using her woman's allotment of thousands of words to tell me about it.

 

[WillasDad]

Roggin has been well respected for decades across the country. He's been the lead LA sportscaster since the 80's and has been part of NBC's Olympic broadcasts for about the same amount of time.

Outside of holding views on the stadium issue adversarial to the SL view, SL people don't have any cause for hating on him. Mark Fabiani, I can understand since Roggin basically calls him and his bs agenda out on a daily basis.

 

[iced]

http://www.businessinsider.com/los-angeles-chargers-raiders-nfl-2015-8


The Chargers and Raiders have a solution to one huge problem with their joint proposal to move to LA


CORK GAINES
Aug. 18, 2015, 3:47 PM


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/los-angeles-chargers-raiders-nfl-2015-8#ixzz3jOLiDnAn

The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders shocked the sports world by presenting a joint proposal to build a new stadium in Carson, California. The proposal staked their claim in the race to return the NFL to Los Angeles, a race that also includes the St. Louis Rams.

The proposal presumably gives the Chargers and the Raiders a big advantage over the Rams because all signs point towards the NFL wanting two teams in Los Angeles. At the recent owners' meetings, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft explained why two teams makes more sense than one.

At the same time, the two-team proposal has a huge problem for the rest of the league: both teams play in the same division.

Sharing a stadium in the NFL is not unprecedented, as the New York Giants have shared a stadium with the New York Jets for the past 30 years in East Rutherford, New Jersey. However, unlike the Giants and the Jets, the Raiders and the Chargers play in the same division and instead of playing each other just once every four years, as the Jets and Giants do, the Raiders and the Chargers play each other twice every year.

After some initial rumblings, both teams seem to be on board with moving to the NFC and swapping places with an AFC team.

This means both teams would get an extra home game every year in which they are the "visiting" team in the matchups.

According to sources for Jason Cole of Bleacher Report, Raiders owner Mark Davis has offered to move his team to the NFC. Presumably that would mean a move to the NFC West with an AFC West team moving in the other direction. Cole proposed the Seattle Seahawks who were formerly an AFC team.

Furthermore, Carmen Policy, a former 49ers executive hired to handle the stadium proposal, indicated that both teams are willing to move with comments directed at the NFL, saying "you send us to LA and you'll make the decision as to who plays in what conference or division."

One extra home game every eight years — the Giants and the Jets alternate who is the home team — is not that big of a deal. One extra home game every year is a huge advantage over the other teams in the division and a big advantage over the rest of the AFC when it often comes down to one game deciding the two wild-card spots.

Of course, this is all for naught if the Raiders and/or Chargers can secure public funding for stadiums in their current cities or if the AFC team balks at switching conferences and disrupting their own big rivalries. But at the same time, this could be one less hurdle the teams need to navigate.