Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread


JSSkinz

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TK said:

So. This physical memorial, will it stay at FedEx which will most likely eventually get imploded, or get moved to wherever the new stadium gets built? 

My assumption is it will get moved.  
 

as a side note, I think they should sell lottery tickets for the ability to push the button and implode FedEX Field.  I would be in for several tickets. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TK said:

So. This physical memorial, will it stay at FedEx which will most likely eventually get imploded, or get moved to wherever the new stadium gets built? 

 

If the new stadium gets built, I would also assume that the statue would get moved.

 

It appears that they are trying to make amends for their earlier mistakes and this seems like a fitting way to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2021 at 4:22 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think you got to make a major distinction.

 

A.   EVERY state or city just about would love to have an NFL team.

 

B.  The controversey is taxpayer funded stadium.

 

The debate is B not A.  If you are arguing that Virginia would absolutely push a taxpayer funded stadium, then I think you might be wrong.  That would be the controversy attaching yourself to Dan.  Asking for taxpayers to pay for Dan's project.

 

If Dan is willing to pay it himself.  Then the whole world is his oyster.

 

Ya know, I gave the Amazon HQ2 example and was ignored.  When I gave the Nationals Stadium deal in DC example, I was told it was too long ago.  Those are two recent examples of the general population not wanting something and their government saying the money is worth it.

 

What you are saying is from the grapevines 4-5 years before those politicians opinions really matter, and I'm saying they are going to change, if its even the same politicians.  4-5 years is a lifetime in politics from a controversy standpoint, imagine if we are winning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Winning? 😆😜
 

Washington will never become a consistent winner under Dan. It’s already baked in the dna of this team, that Ron will crash and burn at some point and be gone. So, will the endless coaches after Ron. Rinse and repeat, a broken record over and over again.

 

 

Do you like jogging?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Ya know, I gave the Amazon HQ2 example and was ignored.  When I gave the Nationals Stadium deal in DC example, I was told it was too long ago.  Those are two recent examples of the general population not wanting something and their government saying the money is worth it.

 

What you are saying is from the grapevines 4-5 years before those politicians opinions really matter, and I'm saying they are going to change, if its even the same politicians.  4-5 years is a lifetime in politics from a controversy standpoint, imagine if we are winning?

 

Well, sure, every politician loves a winner. In the unlikely event that happens, Dan will surely get his stadium. 

 

For the foreseeable future, however, Dan is toxic and the team veers between bad and mediocre. The problem for Dan is that he has to come up with a stadium solution sooner than the 2040s, when his reputation could conceivably be repaired enough so that the political class in the DMV would be willing to be seen near him.

 

Remember, too, that the current scandal set around Dan isn't even over yet. It's unlikely we've heard the worst of it. Maybe if the climate around #metoo cools off and the wokesters start getting ignored. Right now, though, any move to even approve a stadium built on Dan's dime will get negative press and protesters etc. I get how the Nationals managed to scratch enough backs in City Hall to make their stadium happen--but the climate around taxpayer funded stadiums has cooled since then, and the Lerners weren't a toxic brand.

 

Do we know how likely it is that Dan could get short-term renewals on the FedEx ground lease? I mean, it is income for PG County with no effort needed, so I can see the politicians approving that.

Edited by profusion
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, profusion said:

 

Well, sure, every politician loves a winner. In the unlikely event that happens, Dan will surely get his stadium. 

 

Got to be annoying knowing thats true.

 

1 hour ago, profusion said:

For the foreseeable future, however, Dan is toxic and the team veers between bad and mediocre. The problem for Dan is that he has to come up with a stadium solution sooner than the 2040s, when his reputation could conceivably be repaired enough so that the political class in the DMV would be willing to be seen near him.

 

Not sure why you saying that far out when the FedEx Field lease is over in late 2020s.  His reputation doesn't have to be repaired, he just needs time between the sexual harassment report and lease ending so its not so fresh in peoples minds.

 

1 hour ago, profusion said:

Remember, too, that the current scandal set around Dan isn't even over yet. It's unlikely we've heard the worst of it. Maybe if the climate around #metoo cools off and the wokesters start getting ignored.

 

#metoo movement is already dead, imo, I hate believing that, but there isn't the same momentum it had that it needs now to crack the NFL on their protection of Snyder.

 

1 hour ago, profusion said:

 

Right now, though, any move to even approve a stadium built on Dan's dime will get negative press and protesters etc. I get how the Nationals managed to scratch enough backs in City Hall to make their stadium happen--but the climate around taxpayer funded stadiums has cooled since then, and the Lerners weren't a toxic brand.

 

I want to re-emphasize this and why I'm really responding to this post, DC courted the Expos to DC, not the other way around.  They had given up on building the tax base internally and decided to bring new people in who had more money.  Part of this process was the stadium in SW to help kick start gentrification on the waterfront.  Black DC residents knew this and didn't support it, but it did not matter, DC offered so much public money anyway that they own the stadium, not the Nationals, despite fierce local opposition:

 

Quote

"People forget, the baseball commitment won by one vote in the council," he said. "This wasn't an overwhelming display of support."

 

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/nats-park-billion-dollar-gamble/65-70abe9a1-32f6-48f2-853e-9ce61fe63932

 

If Nationals stadium is the example of one of the DMV local governments ignoring the will of the its citizens, Amazon and its HQ2 deal is an example of dealing with a toxic brand and public funding still being deemed "worth it".  They jus had a global protest against them on Black Friday, Snyder has never had a global protest.

 

1 hour ago, profusion said:

Do we know how likely it is that Dan could get short-term renewals on the FedEx ground lease? I mean, it is income for PG County with no effort needed, so I can see the politicians approving that.

 

Hell, this sounds like they still want to use public funds to help with and around the stadium, the opposite of a state sounding like they want them gone:

 

Quote

Team owner Dan Snyder reportedly wants to move the team to the old RFK Stadium site in D.C., though Maryland officials are working to prevent a move. In October, Hogan expressed his desire to keep the team in Maryland, telling NBC Sports Washington, “We don’t want to lose the team out of the state, and we’re going to fight hard to make sure that we keep them here.”

 

https://dcist.com/story/21/04/14/county-executive-alsobrooks-plans-to-invest-in-fedex-field-area-to-make-it-a-year-round-destination/

 

As said when I started on this topic, theres no doubt in my mind the DMV governments will fight with each other over who gets the new stadium the closer we get to the lease ending.  Despite how toxic Dan is right now, its hard for them to turn down that money, and they won't, even if it costs them public funding to get it done. 

 

There is not enough energy on the ground now to stop it, and there will be even less the further we get away from this NFL report.  Not saying there's no energy, jus not enough.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Ya know, I gave the Amazon HQ2 example and was ignored.  When I gave the Nationals Stadium deal in DC example, I was told it was too long ago.  Those are two recent examples of the general population not wanting something and their government saying the money is worth it.

 

What you are saying is from the grapevines 4-5 years before those politicians opinions really matter, and I'm saying they are going to change, if its even the same politicians.  4-5 years is a lifetime in politics from a controversy standpoint, imagine if we are winning?

 

I don't find the Amazon HQ2 apples to apples relevant so yeah I ignored it.   Along with everything else Amazon still put 2.5 billion dollars of their own money into it and created jobs.  If you find it relevant to this.  OK.  But I dont that much.  I get the relevancy you find to it is political opposition to the giveaway portion.  But to me political opposition for a business location versus an NFL stadium are apples to oranges.  it's a different type of sell IMO.

 

I know all about politics and changing opinions.  It's what I do for a living. Heck I am even close with a lady who actually helped lead the PR push for a stadium in another state. Having said that, maybe though mentioning the politics of this has mucked up the debate some because my main point isn't that things have changed now and previously they had a good shot at it.  I just meant the sexual harrassment stuff is an added thing to the political pile here. But I'd feel the same even without it. 

 

I'll say it differently.  BEFORE the sexual harrassment scandals happened -- reporters who covered this story, said their sources tell them they've heard that they are struggiling to make hay if the idea is to get taxpayer funded help.  And part of that was Dan isn't a popular dude but it was not the only reason.  So the argument from a pure political stand point, is years later and you add to the pile the sexual harassment case, we'd have to believe that things have gotten better in that mix of all that -- again not worse but people feel better about Dan and that investment now?

 

Liz Clarke who is a serious reporter for the WP, she's not a throw things against the wall-gossipy type has got into this in great detail on a number of podcasts.  Granted this was two years ago.  I haven't heard a peep recently from her as to a report.  What has changed since?  Bruce replaced by Wright (I think this helps).  the name changed (I think this helps).  The sexual harassment case (doesn't help).

 

As for politics changing and circumstances changing.  Here is where I think things are worse and better from two years ago when they were supposedly struggiling with this behind the scenes.  And part of the reason why I think Clarke and Loverro, etc were being truthful is Bruce's whole existence for a spell was sold partly because his political connections was supposedly the panacea to get a stadium.  And by most accounts he made almost no progress on it.

 

Better:

 

A.  Jason Wright IMO is a mile smarter than Bruce.    His rhetoric indicates he gets it as for how to sell it.

B.  Gambiling looms as much of a bigger deal than 2 years ago.  There might be a way to finesse that as part of a package to finance it. 

C.  I gather you don't think the National Harbor is much in play because of Metro access but articles indicated that Dan has indeed poked around that area.  I think they can make it work if need be there. Gambling connection there plus built in entertainment compelex

 

Worse

A.  Dan was unpopular 2 years ago.  It's even worse now. 

B.  TV ratings are worse.  Stadium attendance worse or at best the same. 

C.  Sexual harrassment gives a personal hot button political issue to rally about in additonal to the financial implications for a taxpayer funded stadium.

 

But again, I am probably overexplaining this.  do I think Dan can get a stadium?  Sure.  Do i think he can get a taxpayer funded one?  Nope.  That's our disagreement.  But the outcome could be something totally different.  I get the impression piecing together different narratives that they might come up with a funky way to finance this that including gambiling ( a cut on some gambiling type tax?), heavy business parternships, and loans.  And they sell the project as a year round money maker.  But I seriously doubt taxpayers finance anything aside from infrastructure upgraded around the stadium ala what happened years back with the Patriots.   

 

But will see.  I hope your more optimistic view of this comes to bear.  And since I am not a taxpayer in the DMV whatever happened on that front or not, means nothing to me personally.  

 

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/nfl/bs-md-hogan-redskins-20181211-story.html

If the deal goes through, Hogan said Maryland taxpayers would not be paying to build a new stadium. He said the state might provide funding for infrastructure work, however.

The governor also said the deal would likely need approval of Congress.

“We’re not going to build a billionaire a stadium,” Hogan said. “We’re not going to spend one penny for construction. … Maybe infrastructure improvements.”

 
Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

56 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But will see.  I hope your more optimistic view of this comes to bear.  And since I am not a taxpayer in the DMV whatever happened on that front or not, means nothing to me personally.  

 

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/nfl/bs-md-hogan-redskins-20181211-story.html

If the deal goes through, Hogan said Maryland taxpayers would not be paying to build a new stadium. He said the state might provide funding for infrastructure work, however.

The governor also said the deal would likely need approval of Congress.

“We’re not going to build a billionaire a stadium,” Hogan said. “We’re not going to spend one penny for construction. … Maybe infrastructure improvements.”

 

 

I'm not optimistic, im convinced the DMV governments will do this and it pisses me off.  And this quote emphasis my original point, its from 2018, my quote from the same governor about Maryland fighting hard to keep the team in Maryland is from 2021.

 

His position is moving the closer it gets real to them possibly leaving for DC or VA, and its not going to end with dangling infrastructure upgrades.

 

Last note on National Habor, if he doesn't get fans frustration with walking a mile from the metro to get to FedEx, of course hes stupid enough to look into a site that has no metro.  He doesn't care about us, but its still a bad idea brought forth likely from desperation for any land or site, his first preference is still the RFK site by a country mile.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

I'm not optimistic, im convinced the DMV governments will do this and it pisses me off.  And this quote emphasis my original point, its from 2018, my quote from the same governor about Maryland fighting hard to keep the team in Maryland is from 2021.

 

His position is moving the closer it gets real to them possibly leaving for DC or VA, and its not going to end with dangling infrastructure upgrades.

 

Last note on National Habor, if he doesn't get fans frustration with walking a mile from the metro to get to FedEx, of course hes stupid enough to look into a site that has no metro.  He doesn't care about us, but its still a bad idea brought forth likely from desperation for any land or site, his first preference is still the RFK site by a country mile.

 

I am not convinced as for the taxpayer funded component.   

 

National Harbor has its drawbacks.  But I think it beats ending up in the boondocks in Virginia.  At least the National Harbor has a coolness factor that Landover doesn't have.  You can make it a day of it there.  Take the ferry to Alexandria, go gambling, stay at a nice hotel within spitting distance.  Some good albeit not great restaurants-bars.   But I agree DC would be best case scenario.

 

I think Wright being in charge of this should help by a mile over Bruce.  Bruce made one of the biggest faux pas in politics and that is not taking advantage of fleeting political advantages.  They had a time where they had the Interior secretary willing to help in a big way to secure the land in DC.  At a different time, they had McAuliffe fixated on landing them.   They had a favorable Congress.  Yet, they dawdled and let those advantages peter away and then scrambled at the 10th hour to make up ground and then it was too late.  That's sort of the picture painted by those who covered this story. 

 

I don't think Jason will be that level dense.  Tough to be as stupid as Bruce or worse yet the combination of Dan and Bruce.  For me I can tell from Jason's description of how he's shooting at this and what he's looking for he's a mile more with it than Bruce.  So if i had to pick what I am most optmistic about it -- its that.  

 

 

https://networkinvegas.com/raidersstadiumscam-defaults/

 

The State of Nevada’s government officials also helped Las Vegas Raiders owner Mark Davis hide the terms of his loan from Bank of America from the public when they passed the legislation that created the $750 million bond via an 0.88 percent room tax increase. The bill included language that keeps the fine print of Bank of America’s loan a secret.

Per language in the legislation authorizing public funding for the facility, information the team demonstrates is “proprietary” or “confidential,” such as its finances, cannot be shared beyond the Stadium Authority.

“A big part of the information that the board will get will be confidential,” said Steve Hill, who chairs the Stadium Authority and leads the Governor’s Office of Economic Development. “The Raiders’ financial situation is not going to be a public document. We’ll get a framework for that at a board meeting, but the individual board members will get a more thorough briefing outside the public.”

Via the Nevada Independent

Even Bank of America knew the only way they would get paid was to screw Las Vegas residents!

It seems the State doesn’t want you to know that even before COVID, Bank of America was unsure the Raiders would ever be able to make a profit in Vegas and doubted they would draw the draw 451,000 new visitors every year that Nevada officials claimed.

Back in 2017, Roger Noll, Stanford economics professor emeritus, flat out rejected financial projections Nevada lawmakers used to pass the $750 funding bill. “It is a catenation of optimistic assumptions,” he said. “The probability that it could happen isn’t zero, but it is pretty close to zero.”

“Every single thing they made an assumption on has no prior experience anywhere else,” said Noll, director of the Program in Regulatory Policy in the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. “In defense of it, well this is different because this is Vegas, therefore, it must be true.” … “Why would they go with this phony-baloney stuff that Vegas is different. Why would they believe a half a million who would never visit Vegas would suddenly show up because there is a football stadium? It’s so far out there it is a puzzle.”

Clark County taps reserve fund for Allegiant Stadium payment

This week we learned that for the second time in six months, Clark County had to pull millions of dollars from reserve funds to meet a payment on the Las Vegas Raiders’ one-year-old stadium — a stadium locals haven’t even been able to use due to the Sisolak shutdowns.

Clark County disclosed in regulatory filings that it will make an unscheduled draw of $11.7 million from one of the reserve funds backstopping the $645 million in bonds issued in 2018. A $16.1 million payment is due on the bonds for June 1.

“This action does not constitute a default and was expected in light of the decline in tourism to Las Vegas,” Clark County director of communications Erik Pappa wrote in an email. “Fortunately, the financing for the Stadium Authority bonds included the funding of a debt service reserve fund to weather economic declines like the one Las Vegas is currently experiencing due to the pandemic.”

In November 2020, municipal officials pulled out $11.6 million from reserves to meet the Dec. 1 semi-annual payment.

By the time the Allegiant Stadium debt is fully paid, Clark County will have paid $709 million in interest on top of the $645 million in principal for its financing of the scam stadium.

Never Ending Scams: Raiders sell Henderson facility for 30 times what they paid the City!

After scamming Nevada into the largest public subsidy in American history, in 2018 the Raiders persuaded the fools on the Henderson City Council to shave $6.05 million off the $12.1 market value of 55 acres of land to build that practice field and corporate headquarters near the city’s executive airport.

2 years after buying the land for only 6 million dollars, Mark Davis then sold the Raider’s Henderson headquarters for $191 million — 30x what they paid – turning a $185M profit. As part of the sale, they entered into a potential 99-year ground lease agreement.

And where is Sisolak in all of this?

Back when he was County Commissioner, before he became one of the biggest Raiders cheerleaders, he admitted that he numbers made no sense. Sisolak told the San Jose Mercury News at the time that “Adelson said he couldn’t get a 2% return on his $650 million. That is $13 million a year. A regularly structured deal on $650 million amortized over 30 years, the principal is $20 million a year. With just a 4% interest rate it would cost an additional $26 million annually,” he said, “Where are they going to get $46 million a year?”

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skinsinparadise's post is why I have a hard time rooting for any of these teams or watching the NFL. It's one thing to have a transparent process where the public or tourists get screwed (really tired of paying taxes for stadiums or arenas or convention centers I'm not using because I booked a room to see family or friends) via a car rental/hotel tax, it's another to engage in this sort of parasitism. At least the Skins could have once claimed they offered non-economic benefits to the community, but they can't really say that anymore. Why should any corporation besides the Green Bay Packers get to see a dime of public money (I'd be amenable to public money going to pay for connecting the stadium's utilities and services to the main lines, just as I would for a new neighborhood or something like that)? 

 

Raiders really lived up to their name in Vegas.  We're in the looting stage and have been for a few decades.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an argument for it back when the municipalities built the venues on their own, such as RFK and the old Meadowlands. The teams just leased them, and they were multipurpose. It was a public facility.

 

Building a billionaire a custom stadium designed specifically around their own needs, and which they have total control over, is just inexcusable--especially given how often it's been in response to a threat of moving the team. The "jobs" argument has always been laughable. Spending that kind of public money to generate a relative handful of additional jobs is nonsense. If the modern mixed-use development centered around a stadium is economically vital, then private developers and lenders will be lining up with the cash to pay for it. It's pure corruption to have the public pay for it.

Edited by profusion
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, profusion said:

There was an argument for it back when the municipalities built the venues on their own, such as RFK and the old Meadowlands. The teams just leased them, and they were multipurpose. It was a public facility.

 

Building a billionaire a custom stadium designed specifically around their own needs, and which they have total control over, is just inexcusable--especially given how often it's been in response to a threat of moving the team. The "jobs" argument has always been laughable. Spending that kind of public money to generate a relative handful of additional jobs is nonsense. If the modern mixed-use development centered around a stadium is economically vital, then private developers and lenders will be lining up with the cash to pay for it. It's pure corruption to have the public pay for it.

 

To add to what you are saying they aren't adding any jobs that aren't already filled at Fedex. It's not adding jobs just moving them from one facility to another. If you move from Md to Va you're basically just ****ing over the people that live in Maryland. You're adding jobs to one community while taking them away form another. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

 

To add to what you are saying they aren't adding any jobs that aren't already filled at Fedex. It's not adding jobs just moving them from one facility to another. If you move from Md to Va you're basically just ****ing over the people that live in Maryland. You're adding jobs to one community while taking them away form another. 

 

Adding on more - While there is some minor plus to the community, it's certainly not the widespread community saving economic infusion promised. And many times it's a net negative when all is said and done. But honestly my bigger problem has always been what about people who do not like sports - or maybe just that sport. My dad could care less about sports. Only pays a little attention because he knows l like them. There is no way his tax money should go to build a stadium he will never use and does not want. If the team wants a stadium the team should build a stadium. And i have always felt this way, even before the snyder years. He just helps make the argument. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, profusion said:

Building a billionaire a custom stadium designed specifically around their own needs, and which they have total control over, is just inexcusable--especially given how often it's been in response to a threat of moving the team.

I've often been wondering how many cities that don't have an NFL team can actually "buy" an NFL team... The moving threat is fun, but I can hardly see an NFL team moving to Paris, Tx...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I've often been wondering how many cities that don't have an NFL team can actually "buy" an NFL team... The moving threat is fun, but I can hardly see an NFL team moving to Paris, Tx...

Yeah I don't see that either. But there are probably some viable cities that don't currently have a team. St Louis, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Oakland, Orlando, Portland to name a few. I'm not saying an NFL team would thrive at any of these places but they all have major sports teams and have more going for them than Paris Tx. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

Yeah I don't see that either. But there are probably some viable cities that don't currently have a team. St Louis, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Oakland, Orlando, Portland to name a few. I'm not saying an NFL team would thrive at any of these places but they all have major sports teams and have more going for them than Paris Tx. 

 

San Diego and St. Louis are the big two. Would they blow a bunch of taxpayer dollars to build Dan Snyder a stadium? At the moment, no, but five years from now if and when the current controversies are quieted it might be different.

 

TV territories are the biggest factor. Would adding a city increase the number of people watching the NFL on TV? Milwaukee "belongs" to the Packers. Portland "belongs" to the Seahawks. San Antonio/Austin "belongs" to the Cowboys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, profusion said:

 

San Diego and St. Louis are the big two. Would they blow a bunch of taxpayer dollars to build Dan Snyder a stadium? At the moment, no, but five years from now if and when the current controversies are quieted it might be different.

 

TV territories are the biggest factor. Would adding a city increase the number of people watching the NFL on TV? Milwaukee "belongs" to the Packers. Portland "belongs" to the Seahawks. San Antonio/Austin "belongs" to the Cowboys. 

I agree about Milwaukee but I think I could make the argument that Portland doesn't belong to the Seahawks. I think the biggest issue with Portland is Portland itself. Before the Panthers came along the Carolinas belonged to Washington. People move on when they get their own team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

I agree about Milwaukee but I think I could make the argument that Portland doesn't belong to the Seahawks. I think the biggest issue with Portland is Portland itself. Before the Panthers came along the Carolinas belonged to Washington. People move on when they get their own team.

 

I grew up in Portland, so I know what you mean. The NFL's notion of TV territories is somewhat odd. I mean, Baltimore and DC are 30 miles apart and yet are separate territories, while San Antonio is five hours from Dallas and yet won't get a team because Jerry Jones considers it his territory. I've read that one of the reasons the NFL isn't hotter on Portland as a prospect is the effect it would have on the Seahawks. I don't know whether that's really true.

 

Portland's not really a football town, and to the extent it is, it's Oregon Ducks first, Seahawks second, and 49ers a distant third. Oregon State's probably in there somewhere, but it mostly only gets supported by alumni. The city could support a team economically, but the overall enthusiasm level isn't there.

 

I think San Diego is now kind of in the same boat as Portland, in that there probably won't be a ton of enthusiasm to spend money to bring another team to town. St. Louis is the most likely relocation target now.

 

 

Edited by profusion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...