|
farewell St. Louis Rams you will always have a special place in my heart for being the first team to lose to Tom Brady in the super bowl
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 03:53 |
|
|
# ¿ May 3, 2024 09:19 |
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I always thought sports teams should be publicly owned so did baltimore, that's why the colts fled in the dead of night because maryland was about to eminent domain their asses
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 19:49 |
|
GaussianCopula posted:I'm 99.9% sure that they will have a buy-back program where the PSL-owner either gets the "face value" (the money they originally bought them for) or, if sold via the official trade platform, the money he bought them for. I think it's extremely unlikely that they will carry over to LA. I'm sure they don't want them to carry over to LA. Question is, did their lawyers gently caress up and not give them a choice in the matter.
|
# ¿ Jan 14, 2016 22:56 |
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I've never seen much hate for New York in Philly outside of sports rivalries and reactions to dumb poo poo like this. Having one of the most amazing cities in the world and everything it has to offer a daytrip away (while not having to pay New York rent prices) is one of the benefits of living in Philly. philly is sort of a special case for city rivalries because the city most philly residents hate is philadelphia itself
|
# ¿ Jan 6, 2017 16:29 |
|
aperion posted:I don't know what made them think this tweet was a good idea. yeah it was a great idea
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2017 05:55 |
|
Goldman Sachs knows what's actually valuable: they would sell the naming rights to someone else for what they actually love, money.
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2017 18:00 |
|
a neat cape posted:Can I quit this team yes you can, and you should
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2017 22:13 |
|
Knucklebear posted:Is there a media outlet or personality outside of the commissioners office that thinks the Chargers move to LA is a good idea? Forbes, in calculating the value of the team.
|
# ¿ Jan 17, 2017 23:34 |
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Is this what happens for Jets/Giants games? Yes. It sucks.
|
# ¿ Jan 18, 2017 16:35 |
|
Ammanas posted:That's weirdly generous toward the chargers, idgi Kronke had to play nice since most of the owners liked Spanos more than they liked him. The reason he won is they liked money even more and Kronke looked like he'd make the league more money. So he won, but had to be nice to Spanos as part of the deal.
|
# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 00:01 |
|
v2vian man posted:none of what you posted is supported by the article at all Besides the ownership stake, it absolutely is, but its all contingent on Goldman being willing to piss of Adelson and that ESPN article suggests they're going wobbly. My guess is the team involved in this didn't think that particular issue through and Adelson has called up their bosses and started issuing threats. Now, Goldman is stuck between pissing off a wealthy and powerful client or hurting their ability to have whatever non-binding "we'll totally do this" assurances they gave Davis be trusted in the future.
|
# ¿ Jan 31, 2017 17:01 |
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The question is will Davis be able to pay on that amount of money. He has no collateral other than the team and if conditions occurred that he couldn't pay, would the team be worth it. Could GS even take a portion of the team in collateral within the ownership rules of the NFL. They might have to turn around and find a single buyer to take it as a distressed asset. Not a great position for them to be in. They'll probably look for league guarantees of some sort. The stadium itself is collateral as well.
|
# ¿ Jan 31, 2017 18:52 |
|
Craptacular! posted:As far as I know they simply forwarded the reassuring smoke-and-mirrors Davis was making that everything is under control (while also beginning their first wave of attack pieces on the NFL for being "hypocrites" this morning, not surprising since Adelson bought paper to be his dirt-diggers and hitmen). I don't know who was making poo poo up but my first instinct would not be to just assume Goldman told the truth when not under oath.
|
# ¿ Jan 31, 2017 21:42 |
|
Craptacular! posted:The Raiders would have to pay the NFL a relocation fee of $550 million, pay the $500 million they committed as part of the three-way deal, buy the four parcels for the stadium, AND convince Goldman Sachs they could pay them back $650 million through cash and assets (stadium naming rights which Goldman could sell to whoever, etc). Goldman was probably planning on selling the debt to third parties and pocketing fees.
|
# ¿ Jan 31, 2017 21:54 |
|
Craptacular! posted:Can one of the people who likes football explain to someone who doesn't, why the Raiders want to pay a $550MM relocation fee to grab $750MM of taxpayer money? I get the need for a bank/local rich guy either way, but if they remained in Northern California they automatically have $550,000,000 more in their budget to build with? If someone was willing to loan me the $550m, since I don't have it, I would absolutely pay $550m to receive $750m. Why are you even asking? That's a free $200m.
|
# ¿ Feb 1, 2017 20:34 |
|
Leperflesh posted:conveniently not mentioning the red states with medical pot... Louisiana, Georgia, Florida... the specific quote was that they may crack down on recreational but not medical
|
# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 05:55 |
|
Rick posted:Recreational did not pass in Arizona and it still is a red state (although early/mail ballots came in massively blue which no one expected since in the past that was all military but it looks like the college students actually used them to vote this time so Arizona is like, a true swing state which might be why McCain is so comfortably anti-trump right now). McCain just got re-elected and is probably more likely to die in his current term than seek re-election.
|
# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 15:15 |
|
|
# ¿ May 3, 2024 09:19 |
|
rjmccall posted:You can't just use eminent domain to take random things you like that happen to be in your city. Even under Kelo, there are limits. that's precisely why the colts moved to indiana overnight without telling anyone at all, because the state was going to eminent domain them
|
# ¿ Jun 21, 2017 18:41 |