Could Bills' Toronto Series Be Shelved For Good? Questions Arise On Soldier Field Expansion Lions' Suh Could Negotiate Own Contract Jags Unveil '14 Season-Ticket Campaign Knicks Fans Planning Rally Against Dolan MLS Red Bulls Struggle To Crack N.Y. Media MLS Franchise Notes Franchise Notes Chicago Exploring Soldier Field Expansion Bills Move Toronto Game Back To Buffalo
Upcoming Conferences and Events
HANDICAPPING THE RAMS' IMPENDING DECISION
Published October 24, 1994
Former Senator Tom Eagleton, the point man for FANS Inc., the group seeking to move the Rams to St. Louis, believes the Rams will decide on a move before Thanksgiving. He also said "tough" differences between St. Louis' recent proposal and the Rams' wish list have yet to be resolved. Eagleton noted the Rams are also seeking more information on St. Louis' Permanent Seat Licensing proposal (Jim Thomas, ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH, 10/23). ESPN's Chris Mortenson handicaps the Rams' options: "Conventional wisdom points to St. Louis ... [but] if all things were equal, the Rams would: A) Love to stay in L.A. with a new stadium -- not likely to happen; B) Move to Baltimore over St. Louis. But what is hurting Baltimore may not be the threat of litigation from the Redskins, as much as there is a feeling of discomfort among NFL owners that Baltimore point man Peter Angelos is not quote 'one of their types'" ("Sunday Sportsday," ESPN, 10/23). In St. Louis, Jim Thomas offers a rundown of the three bids. ANAHEIM: Plusses: No moving. Minuses: No new stadium, fan apathy. BALTIMORE: Plusses: Perception it's a better football town. Minuses: Redskins; no new stadium until '97 or later; Angelos' insistence on a buyout option from Georgia Frontiere. ST. LOUIS: Plusses: Best deal. Minuses: Perception it's not a good football town (ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH, 10/23).