New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Ohhhhhhhhh

shenanigans.png


It's just getting redundant. Well, more redundant than most anyway.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
You mean the fake lawsuit that had all three sides wanting the same thing ended the way they wanted? Color me shocked.
 

RamzFanz

Damnit
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
9,029
Just pointing out again, there was no way they were losing in court. When the politicians and Unions want the same thing in STL, it happens.
 

RamzFanz

Damnit
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
9,029
Judge rules St. Louis can spend tax money on stadium without public vote
Posted by Josh Alper on August 3, 2015, 1:38 PM EDT
cd0ymzcznguwzdbhnduynddiytjhm2yyzthlmtjjotqwyyznptu3otbmytm0yjbhyzi2yjdhnwy2mwm2nmu5mdi5ogrl.jpeg
AP
A judge in St. Louis has ruled that the city does not need a public vote in order to spend city tax dollars for the construction of a proposed stadium to replace the Edward Jones Dome.

Judge Thomas Frawley agreed with the argument made by the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority that the ordinance requiring a vote is invalid because it is too vaguely worded. One point of vagueness was that a new stadium was required to be “adjacent” to an existing convention center, which opponents argued did not apply to the current stadium proposal. Frawley ruled that the two sites did not need to be contiguous to qualify as adjacent.

“‘Adjacent’ has commonly been interpreted by Missouri courts to mean ‘near or close at hand’ and as ‘not necessarily meaning contiguous,’ i.e. not necessarily meaning touching each other or immediately next to each other,” Frawley wrote in his ruling, via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The ruling opens the door for the use of city money for a new stadium, although that may not be enough to stop the Rams from pursuing a move to the Inglewood, California stadium proposed by owner Stan Kroenke. It would allow the possibility of landing another team in the event the Rams did depart without hurting the chances of keeping them in town and the league will be holding a meeting next week to discuss stadium issues in St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland and Los Angeles.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...end-tax-money-on-stadium-without-public-vote/
 

snackdaddy

Who's your snackdaddy?
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
10,719
Name
Charlie
I wonder how this will affect ticket sales this year? Still more hurdles to clear but I'm sure it can only help with that. Imagine how fans woulda felt if it went the other way? I think the stadium woulda been pretty empty except for opposing fans. A full stadium is good news for all Rams fans.
 

Loyal

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
29,457
Now we are coming down to brass tacks...St Louis has the money ready, and Kroenke is spending his money in Inglewood. Carson is a ruse (imho), and the NFL seems to finally want to get LA done. If Kroenke does Inglewood with an extra lockerroom for another team, they can have the best of both worlds. An established, rich owner that will make LA work AND have the leverage option for any other stadium situation threatening a move..

Does the NFL have the will to stop the 2nd richest owner from building the fantasy stadium and new NFL West Offices on site? Or will they try to restrict the same private business owner to stay in ST Louis?:popcorn:
 

Legatron4

Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
9,427
Name
Wes
Now we are coming down to brass tacks...St Louis has the money ready, and Kroenke is spending his money in Inglewood. Carson is a ruse (imho), and the NFL seems to finally want to get LA done. If Kroenke does Inglewood with an extra lockerroom for another team, they can have the best of both worlds. An established, rich owner that will make LA work AND have the leverage option for any other stadium situation threatening a move..

Does the NFL have the will to stop the 2nd richest owner from building the fantasy stadium and new NFL West Offices on site? Or will they try to restrict the same private business owner to stay in ST Louis?:popcorn:
Find out next time, ON DRAGONBALL Z!
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Judge rules St. Louis can spend tax money on stadium without public vote
Posted by Josh Alper on August 3, 2015, 1:38 PM EDT
cd0ymzcznguwzdbhnduynddiytjhm2yyzthlmtjjotqwyyznptu3otbmytm0yjbhyzi2yjdhnwy2mwm2nmu5mdi5ogrl.jpeg
AP
A judge in St. Louis has ruled that the city does not need a public vote in order to spend city tax dollars for the construction of a proposed stadium to replace the Edward Jones Dome.

Judge Thomas Frawley agreed with the argument made by the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority that the ordinance requiring a vote is invalid because it is too vaguely worded. One point of vagueness was that a new stadium was required to be “adjacent” to an existing convention center, which opponents argued did not apply to the current stadium proposal. Frawley ruled that the two sites did not need to be contiguous to qualify as adjacent.

“‘Adjacent’ has commonly been interpreted by Missouri courts to mean ‘near or close at hand’ and as ‘not necessarily meaning contiguous,’ i.e. not necessarily meaning touching each other or immediately next to each other,” Frawley wrote in his ruling, via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The ruling opens the door for the use of city money for a new stadium, although that may not be enough to stop the Rams from pursuing a move to the Inglewood, California stadium proposed by owner Stan Kroenke. It would allow the possibility of landing another team in the event the Rams did depart without hurting the chances of keeping them in town and the league will be holding a meeting next week to discuss stadium issues in St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland and Los Angeles.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...end-tax-money-on-stadium-without-public-vote/

He put the original rendering on this story......I wish he would have put the most up-to-date version.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
DAVE PEACOCK'S STATEMENT ON TODAY'S LEGAL RULING IN ST. LOUIS
#STLNFL Task Force

Posted on Aug 3rd, 2015


"My task force partner Bob Blitz deserves a great deal of credit for today's result. Bob's commitment to the stadium project is impressive and his work on this matter, along with other members of our legal team, was extraordinary.

"The court's opinion is a victory for a bold and promising future for the NFL in St. Louis and the continued rebirth of our downtown. As we continue to make excellent progress on the stadium project, this is a great time for everyone in the St. Louis region to rally on behalf of something that will make a difference in our economy, national profile and quality of life for generations to come. We can make it happen."

http://lockerdome.com/7475583080735553/7910047376219153
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
There's that generic NFL in St. Louis language again...

He's speaking on the NFL as a business staying in the city. It's not generic in the sense that, "Oh, let's say NFL because we secretly know the Rams are already leaving."
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
22,896
He's speaking on the NFL as a business staying in the city. It's not generic in the sense that, "Oh, let's say NFL because we secretly know the Rams are already leaving."
You have to admit, the exclusion of the Rams name and substituted with "The NFL" is a bit curious.
Why not say, "The court's opinion is a victory for a bold and promising future for a new home for our Rams and the continued rebirth of our downtown."
When the new Busch was being built was it referred to as a home for MLB or the Cardinals?
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,847
You have to admit, the exclusion of the Rams name and substituted with "The NFL" is a bit curious.
Why not say, "The court's opinion is a victory for a bold and promising future for a new home for our Rams and the continued rebirth of our downtown."
When the new Busch was being built was it referred to as a home for MLB or the Cardinals?

But there is this....http://stlstadium.com/
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
You have to admit, the exclusion of the Rams name and substituted with "The NFL" is a bit curious.
Why not say, "The court's opinion is a victory for a bold and promising future for a new home for our Rams and the continued rebirth of our downtown."
When the new Busch was being built was it referred to as a home for MLB or the Cardinals?

All the renderings feature the Rams. He's also said many times "our Rams." The fact is, in this situation, he's referring to the business of the NFL staying in the city.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.