New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Prime Time]

Lets see if we poll 700 of the most right wing bible thumpers in the state

Keep your anti-religious or political views to yourself. That has no place here in this thread or any other thread.

 

[Username]

Another thing that's funny on a side note is going back and reading articles like this

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...loom-gives-strong-endorsment-to-stan-kroenke/

Chip Rosenbloom gives strong endorsment to Stan Kroenke
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on May 27, 2010, 8:15 AM EST
Recently, Saints owner Tom Benson declared that “everybody” wants Stan Kroenke to own the St. Louis Rams.

Now, the son of former Rams majority owner Georgia Frontiere says that he and his sister want to see Kroenke get the team, too. Chip Rosenbloom explained his preference in an interview with Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

“It is an interesting thing when these teams sell, and sometimes the
past is totally forgotten,” Rosenbloom said, pointing out that Kroenke’s purchase of 40 percent of the team in 1995 helped facilitate the move from Los Angeles to St. Louis. “One of the most important
things to me, and I know Lucia [Rodriguez], too, is to protect the tradition and
legacy of the Rosenbloom family. And that encompasses my mom, of course.

“But that’s not something where you can just sign a contract and say,
‘This is how it’s done.’ Either the people that you hand the baton off
to are going to do it or they’re not going to do it. I feel very
comfortable with Stan as a friend [taking over the team].”

Rosenbloom’s endorsement could be interpreted as a sign that the Rams won’t be returning to L.A., a rumor that has been fueled by Kroenke’s presence on the league’s Los Angeles Stadium Working Group committee. Rosenbloom says that he and his sister are “trying to find the right buyer for us, the right buyer for the
NFL, the right buyer for St. Louis.”

The major impediment to the transaction continues to be Kroenke’s ownership of the NHL’s Colorado Avalanche and the NBA’s Denver Nuggets. If he’s going to buy the Rams, he’ll need to surrender control of the other two franchises.

 

[Username]

Keep your anti-religious or political views to yourself. That has no place here in this thread or any other thread.

That would be their views, as the title of their website reads

"The purpose of the Missouri Alliance for Freedom is to protect and grow individual, religious, and economic liberty throughout Missouri."

I know we want to avoid politics here, but it needed to be said. It's relevant. You may think the wording here is a little harsh, but I don't think anyone that votes on that site would be offended by what I said. I have no problem with what someones religion or opinion of it in general is. That, or their political views makes no difference to me.

This is not a political site, nor does it be long here. However when you're discussing a matter that is tax dollars, it is political. Politics have already been brought up already numerous times in this thread. My point was to simply show that the poll is a ridiculous representation because of the voters bias. Though I doubt anyone in the St. Louis surrounding area would respond much differently to a question worded that way. Especially for a franchise that has been historically the worst ever.

 

[blue4]

Haha, yeah! The mind set of the out staters is definitely anti tax and anti big city! Prejudice is alive in the boonies! They don't even vote their own self interests! Easily swayed if you will! And yes I do know folks who live in small town MO.

I grew up on a farm. Every year at reunion I listen to my uncle rail against highway repair and whatnot as wasteful spending while standing in front of his new piece of equipment and a chunk of field he was paid not to plant. Not to mention the creek that counts as "floodplain".

Don't get me wrong sometimes we survived on that stuff. And sometimes it's needed. This is needed too. Not just for a football team, but for downtown and the city as a whole.

 

[blue4]

The Missouri Alliance for Freedom is a known anti-tax organization. Regardless of your political alignment, it's not a reliable source of news or a unbiased polling organization. It would be like the Teamsters conducting a poll that said that the vast majority of people support union legislation, or the NRA stating that the majority want guns in schools. I wouldn't put any stock in that.

 

[RamFan503]

Nixon Administration? Never really thought about that before. I guess it is. Better not try any tricky stuff Jay... if that's your real name.

 

[Prime Time]

That would be their views, as the title of their website reads

"The purpose of the Missouri Alliance for Freedom is to protect and grow individual, religious, and economic liberty throughout Missouri."

I know we want to avoid politics here, but it needed to be said. It's relevant. You may think the wording here is a little harsh, but I don't think anyone that votes on that site would be offended by what I said. I have no problem with what someones religion or opinion of it in general is. That, or their political views makes no difference to me.

This is not a political site, nor does it be long here. However when you're discussing a matter that is tax dollars, it is political. Politics have already been brought up already numerous times in this thread. My point was to simply show that the poll is a ridiculous representation because of the voters bias. Though I doubt anyone in the St. Louis surrounding area would respond much differently to a question worded that way. Especially for a franchise that has been historically the worst ever.

Fair enough. Thanks for the well thought out post. In retrospect my post was a bit on the harsh side and for that I apologize. During my days as an admin/mod at RRF I not only allowed religion and politics to be discussed, I openly encouraged it. That was a major mistake I won't allow to be repeated here.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm not entirely sure on that... especially given the "in the absence of intervening events" line... I mean, what else could that mean?

An agreement in St Louis to play in the new stadium? Wouldn't they have to them play at the ED beyond 2015?

 

[Username]

Fair enough. Thanks for the well thought out post. In retrospect my post was a bit on the harsh side and for that I apologize. During my days as an admin/mod at RRF I not only allowed religion and politics to be discussed, I openly encouraged it. That was a major mistake I won't allow to be repeated here.

No it wasn't. You're just doing your job. I should have worded it differently. I'm fucking pissed and disheartened about the situation at hand obviously from my current post history. It's hard to convey my thoughts into words sometimes without too much emotion when I see something that pisses me off involving the franchise. Politics are important in the world, but they have their place. I try to avoid talking politics or religion literately anywhere I go. People that force their opinions of them on people I personally detest, and that's pretty much what I did there.

I'll try wording any post about politics in the future where they don't come off so offensive.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm a Rams fan and live in STL but don't believe it's in the best interest of the city to fund a stadium without the guarentee of having a team to play in it! This survey is worded so as to elicit a certain response from folks and doesn't present any of the benefits that putting that new stadium in would bring the city! Doesn't present the type of tax that would be used to fund said stadium to elicit more thought before responding! Typical of agenda driven surveys that I've seen!

Nailed it! In my former life in politics, everyone involved knew they could get virtually any result they wanted out of a poll. I wonder if there is anyone here that actually received one of those calls.

Seriously, no one knows what the diatribe was before the questions. No one besides the polling company, the people hiring the polling company, and the persons taking the poll knows the wording of the actual questions because there is no requirement to disclose that information. Virtually EVERYONE answers yes to the question "Are you likely to vote?". Where were the households and what was the demographic of those being asked. There are just too many variables in a poll to take many of them serious.

The only way to have a poll that is useful to those who are actually making the decision would be for it to be conducted by a neutral party with a mix of population demographics being asked and the questions not only being as straight forward as possible with no pre-text but also have the exact text shown with the results.

Unfortunately, the only time I have seen those kinds of polls used, the information rarely is seen by the general public. If you see any of it, it is also usually only the results they want you to see. Polls are a scam most of the time.

 

[Dagonet]

Fair enough. Thanks for the well thought out post. In retrospect my post was a bit on the harsh side and for that I apologize. During my days as an admin/mod at RRF I not only allowed religion and politics to be discussed, I openly encouraged it. That was a major mistake I won't allow to be repeated here.

I know what happened there and can see where you were coming from. I also think username came across a little harsh. I was thinking along your lines as "oh no, here we go again." lol Now I see where he was coming from in the posts following his original. Funny how things in text and other incidents can be misunderstood. You guys both just showed me what I like about this board.
You both had patience and came to an understanding civilly, and as a member I say :cheers: to you both.

 

[Dagonet]

It only asked for the favorite team. Is it any suprise that it's the Cardinals by a wide margin?

Also, the way the last question was worded is a bit off. It mentions nothing about that being half the cost, with the NFL and Stan kicking in the other half. It also, doesn't mention that the "taxpayer" funds are being taken care of by extending the existing bonds. The 99% of the taxpayers in the state won't ever feel any burden from the new stadium.

Don't mean to repost on this but I can't edit my last post.. They didn't ask me... I would have voted....

1. Rams
2. Blues
3. Cardinals

I am one who blows out of the water the theory that this is a baseball city/region only..

 

[RamFan503]

No it wasn't. You're just doing your job. I should have worded it differently. I'm freaking pissed and disheartened about the situation at hand obviously from my current post history. It's hard to convey my thoughts into words sometimes without too much emotion when I see something that pisses me off involving the franchise. Politics are important in the world, but they have their place. I try to avoid talking politics or religion literately anywhere I go. People that force their opinions of them on people I personally detest, and that's pretty much what I did there.

I'll try wording any post about politics in the future where they don't come off so offensive.

Damn I'd like to like the exchange between you and Prime about 50 times.

I think we all get the angst and anger you guys in St Louis must feel. But that exchange was what IMO makes the posters here and the goal of this site so great. We all get pissed or over zealous from time to time. Shit - we're fans. But I would bet on virtually any other site, that would have escalated badly.

Edit: I just noticed Dag already responded and I like his wording far better. Thanks Dag.

 

[Dagonet]

Damn I'd like to like the exchange between you and Prime about 50 times.

I think we all get the angst and anger you guys in St Louis must feel. But that exchange was what IMO makes the posters here and the goal of this site so great. We all get pissed or over zealous from time to time. crap - we're fans. But I would bet on virtually any other site, that would have escalated badly.

Edit: I just noticed Dag already responded and I like his wording far better. Thanks Dag.

Much appreciated 503, but I'm thinking your wording was better. I could like them 50 times too for starters. I'm in the St. Louis region (have lived in Metro area too), and know how many people feel around here. Even my friends that are Bear fans in Illinois are pissed at Kroenke and the NFL. Plus you recognized that as fans we do get pissed. I agree the exchange was classic. You're also correct that the exchange on other sites would get out of hand. Much kudos to PT and username.

You summed it up pretty damn good man. You know people get pissed. Look at the AZ game. That was my bad and you handled it well. As a former mod on another site I know so, and thank you. What you said above you handled that well too. It shows me you can respect people venting as long as they don't get carried away. As a Mod you need to do so. Management is not about control, it's about managing if that makes sense? I'm thinking I'll be here awhile with you as a mod. Same for PT. Appreciate you cats. Peace.

PS.. Sorry to derail the thread more but I had to say what's on my mind.. We'll get back on track..

 

[TSFH Fan]

I guess the rhetorical question is: Would KMOX, the Cards' flagship, have mentioned the survey if that question 1 was not there?

I haven't seen any other media try to portray the Missouri Alliance for Freedom poll as a news story.

 

[Robocop]

I am kinda curious just how many older fans or fans on the west coast we have in here that would like to see them back in LA. I'm on the east coast so i have no dog in this fight so my only thought would be how much more media coverage if any more would they get in LA in that demographic not even based on if they're winning or losing. cus if coverage were to increase a decent amount they i would have to say I'm for the move lol. I wonder how large that fan base still is out there.

 

[ChrisW]

Just saw that the acquisition of the land on the STL riverfront could start as early as today. Looks like they are moving ahead, regardless.

 

[Boffo97]

An agreement in St Louis to play in the new stadium? Wouldn't they have to them play at the ED beyond 2015?

I don't think that's it. Probably should have posted this earlier:

The "intervening events" can't refer to a new St. Louis stadium because no stadium (St. Louis, Inglewood, London or Mars) is going to be done before March 31st, 2016. I just wonder if Demoff gave himself an out clause.

On a side note, man do the Rams have the right to do a lot right now whether the CVC wants to or not... both converting the lease to year by year, and then either extending or ending it. Those are apparently all unilateral rights of the Rams.

I try to avoid talking politics or religion literately anywhere I go.

Oh, we can discuss them illiterately then? OK! KJksjfksgj sdfjksd kfjs kshjgsjfdbshkdf shdfsdjhfswejhfsdhfshusd fhusdhjerh!

 

[Prime Time]

KJksjfksgj sdfjksd kfjs kshjgsjfdbshkdf shdfsdjhfswejhfsdhfshusd fhusdhjerh!

No politics or religion, damn it! :snicker:

 

[JCK363]

Board OKs hiring consultants for St. Louis riverfront stadium/PD
by David Hunn

ST. LOUIS • The effort to erect a new St. Louis football stadium is now hiring.

Thursday, the public board that built and owns the Edward Jones Dome authorized its leaders to pay consultants toward the development of a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on the north riverfront downtown.

The resolution passed unanimously.

Jim Shrewsbury, chairman of the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, said the vote was both technical and symbolic. Stadium planners have largely volunteered their time until now, he said. This gives them money to spend.

At the same time, it shows that the effort is serious, Shrewsbury said.

The vote comes even as Stan Kroenke, owner of the St. Louis Rams, makes strides toward construction of an 80,000-seat stadium near Los Angeles. Monday, Kroenke’s organizers filed twice as many signatures as needed to force a public vote in Inglewood, Calif., to change the project’s zoning.

The Rams were bound by the team’s lease at the Jones Dome to stay in St. Louis until 2025. Local officials, however, failed to keep the dome in the “top tier” of NFL stadiums, as required by the lease. That allowed the Rams to go year-to-year. The team sent a note to dome managers on Monday, committing to stay in St. Louis only through next season.

Thursday’s vote by the St. Louis sports complex authority gives Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man task force a bit more ammunition in the fight to keep the Rams in St. Louis.

Shrewsbury said the two — authority attorney Robert Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock — have no legal standing to hire for the project.

So far, only Blitz’s firm, Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, has been paid for its work on the project — about $28,000, paid by the sports authority.

Shrewsbury said he expects Peacock and Blitz to begin asking the sports authority to hire consultants in construction and financing of the stadium.

“I’m sure at some point, we’ll be given a list of consultants that they want,” Shrewsbury said on Wednesday. “And we will hire them.”