Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

aperion posted:

I don't know what made them think this tweet was a good idea.

yeah

it was a great idea

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Goldman Sachs knows what's actually valuable: they would sell the naming rights to someone else for what they actually love, money.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

a neat cape posted:

Can I quit this team

yes

you can, and you should

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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?

It seems to me that it's been universally panned (for good reason) and I can't figure out how the NFL or anyone else could think that this would help the long term success of the league.

Forbes, in calculating the value of the team.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Is this what happens for Jets/Giants games?

Yes. It sucks.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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).

This guy, a TV affiliate sports anchor, actually went and called Goldman people.

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.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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).

Probably the banks began to figure they're taking on debt beyond their ability to repay it.

Goldman was probably planning on selling the debt to third parties and pocketing fees.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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).

They already are getting ready to try again though as soon as possible.

McCain just got re-elected and is probably more likely to die in his current term than seek re-election.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

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

  • Locked thread