New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[den-the-coach]

NFL Hall-of-Fame player and broadcaster Dan Dierdorf joined The HollywoodCasinoPress Box on Thursday to talk about the prospect of the Rams leaving St. Louis and what he’s hearing on the Los Angeles relocation situation.

http://www.rams-news.com/dan-dierdo...l-stop-kroenke-from-leaving-st-louis-audio-2/

WOW Dierdorf really puts this in proper perspective in all facets.

 

[RamFan503]

Lol buddy its getting built no matter what, like How Roman Reigns says "Believe That"

I don't care if you want to believe it. No problem with that at all. But that is a pretty major clause to put in a project of that magnitude for no reason. I'd agree that it appears as if they are going to build the stadium but until they start digging that big ass hole for it, nothing is a sure thing. Everyone is expressing their opinion or belief - including you.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I found this photo interesting regarding the new may of Carson.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Letter from the Attorney General of Missouri regarding extending the bonds. Notice how it's addressed to Ryan Silvey, the guy that wanted to pass the bill to require Nixon to push the bondss through state senate first.

*Full Disclosure: I found this on RamStalk.

Dude, you skipped the required 48 hour quarantine. Now you've put us all at risk.

Seriously though, anyone speak legalese? From what I'm seeing it's confirmation of the Governor's ability to extend the bonds, but I could be wrong.

 

[blue4]

NFL Hall-of-Fame player and broadcaster Dan Dierdorf joined The HollywoodCasinoPress Box on Thursday to talk about the prospect of the Rams leaving St. Louis and what he’s hearing on the Los Angeles relocation situation.

http://www.rams-news.com/dan-dierdo...l-stop-kroenke-from-leaving-st-louis-audio-2/

Not much to really debate there. Pretty much the realistic view. If we keep the Rams, it'll be against the odds. I still feel as vehemently as before that it's wrong to move the team, the bylaws do not support it, and that St Louis pound for pound is as good a NFL city as any in America. But IME I've never seen the little guy with less money win.

My hope of landing some back up team like the Raiders just got gashed a little. No one outside of St Louis seems to think it's plausible. Dan's got plenty of contacts I'm sure he's been talking to since the outset. My Cheerios have officially been pissed in.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Not much to really debate there. Pretty much the realistic view. If we keep the Rams, it'll be against the odds. I still feel as vehemently as before that it's wrong to move the team, the bylaws do not support it, and that St Louis pound for pound is as good a NFL city as any in America. But IME I've never seen the little guy with less money win.

My hope of landing some back up team like the Raiders just got gashed a little. No one outside of St Louis seems to think it's plausible. Dan's got plenty of contacts I'm sure he's been talking to since the outset. My Cheerios have officially been pissed in.

Couldn't agree more.

If the Rams stay it's because Stan Kroenke wants to stay or because Stan Kroenke sells.

The NFL isn't going to save us, and no matter what they say, I have my doubts that another team will make its way to St. Louis before the stadium bonds, or the main reason why the stadium is a possibility in the first place, lapse.

I'm fine with either. I wouldn't hold a grudge against Kroenke at all because I know how slow the political process can be here. But if he does stay as owner, I think there will be a lot of people who can only think "That's the guy that tried to steal our team." Selling would be a must, IMO.

As for the Raiders coming here? No thank you. I'm tired of losing, directionless football.

 

[RamFan503]

Letter from the Attorney General of Missouri regarding extending the bonds. Notice how it's addressed to Ryan Silvey, the guy that wanted to pass the bill to require Nixon to push the bondss through state senate first.

*Full Disclosure: I found this on RamStalk.

So it would appear that the Governor is correct in stating that he can extend the bonds through agreement with other entities to help pay for the bonds via lease. My guess is that Silvey asked the AG for an interpretation (I find it funny that he was leaning on the wrong statute) on the Governor's assertions. That's pretty typical as AGs do that all the time for the Governor and Legislature. That would have also been the shortest route for Silvey to be able to stop the Gov from extending the bonds without a vote.

Silvey can still pursue his bill to amend the statutes and block the Governor but I'm pretty sure it would be too late if the Governor has already entered into agreements before the bill has passed. The law in question is a statute not a Constitutional Amendment. That would mean that the legislature can modify it or change it with a simple vote of the legislature and sig from the Gov or by over riding a veto. My guess is though that Nixon will have the agreements in place before the legislature could get all their ducks in a row.

What I don't get then is who is actually extending the bonds. The Authority? And did the Authority have to go to the voters for the original bond to fund the building of the Dome? If they did, I can see a court challenge coming up if they try to extend the bonds without another vote. If they did not have to go to the voters for the original bond, they most certainly wouldn't have to go to the voters this time either and you would think they could make the bond any size necessary to complete the project. Seems odd though. I've never heard of a pseudo governmental agency given that kind of power.

 

[ChrisW]

Couldn't agree more.

If the Rams stay it's because Stan Kroenke wants to stay or because Stan Kroenke sells.

The NFL isn't going to save us, and no matter what they say, I have my doubts that another team will make its way to St. Louis before the stadium bonds, or the main reason why the stadium is a possibility in the first place, lapse.

I'm fine with either. I wouldn't hold a grudge against Kroenke at all because I know how slow the political process can be here. But if he does stay as owner, I think there will be a lot of people who can only think "That's the guy that tried to steal our team." Selling would be a must, IMO.

As for the Raiders coming here? No thank you. I'm tired of losing, directionless football.

It also appears that there's legal precident as well. As a court case was filed and shot down.

 

[blue4]

As for the Raiders coming here? No thank you. I'm tired of losing, directionless football.

I know I've said this many times, but even a bad football team is better than no team. And a bad directionless football team playing in a stadium that sits on what was useless blight is even better.

 

[ZigZagRam]

I know I've said this many times, but even a bad football team is better than no team. And a bad directionless football team playing in a stadium that sits on what was useless blight is even better.

I just don't believe that a city that's watched 10+ years of losing football is going to pay for PSLs, which are completely necessary to fund a new stadium here, to watch one of the only teams in the NFL thats been worse than the Rams during the last decade.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I found this photo interesting regarding the new may of Carson.

View attachment 5864

That's a pretty old picture, when they first started with the Carson talk he did that. Made a lot of Charger/Raiders fans pissed, even those who live in LA and want them to go to LA. It'd be like stitching together a Rams/49ers jersey, fucking stupid.

Seriously though, anyone speak legalese? From what I'm seeing it's confirmation of the Governor's ability to extend the bonds, but I could be wrong.

That's what I'm reading, which is why they're looking for passing that bill that stops him from being able to extend them.

 

[ZigZagRam]

That's what I'm reading, which is why they're looking for passing that bill that stops him from being able to extend them.

Which will be impossible to do before the State legislature adjourns on May 15th, extending the governor's time frame to extend the bonds on his own.

As RamsFan503 and ChrisW alluded to, it'd be difficult to overturn the governor extending these bonds due to the precedent that's already been set by the Missouri Court of Appeals.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Which will be impossible to do before the State legislature adjourns on May 15th, extending the governor's time frame to extend the bonds on his own.

As RamsFan503 and ChrisW alluded to, it'd be difficult to overturn the governor extending these bonds due to the precedent that's already been set by the Missouri Court of Appeals.

It passed the senate already with enough votes to override a veto, I don't know the process at this point, but you'd think they could get it through the house by May 15th. However if Nixon can get it all together then I agree, it's too late. I'd imagine they'll need to cover the county portion they lost though.

 

[mr.stlouis]

That's a pretty old picture, when they first started with the Carson talk he did that. Made a lot of Charger/Raiders fans pissed, even those who live in LA and want them to go to LA. It'd be like stitching together a Rams/49ers jersey, freaking stupid.



That's what I'm reading, which is why they're looking for passing that bill that stops him from being able to extend them.

Yeah, it would be weird if you lived in the same house as your enemy. I doubt that happens.

Maybe that "nobody to LA" ploy has some merit? IDK

 

[blue4]

I just don't believe that a city that's watched 10+ years of losing football is going to pay for PSLs, which are completely necessary to fund a new stadium here, to watch one of the only teams in the NFL thats been worse than the Rams during the last decade.

Perhaps you are right. I guess we can always pull up some chairs and watch the paint peel off of old crappy buildings. That'll show em...

That just seems to be a short sighted view IMO, but I've already given my view on that before. Suffice it to say, I'd wager that attitude would last until about 2017 or so, when it really starts to sink in that we've got nothing. I hope that we would realize that something is better than nothing in this case. JMO. I not so sure anymore that it's even going to be an option anyway.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Perhaps you are right. I guess we can always pull up some chairs and watch the paint peel off of old crappy buildings. That'll show em...

That just seems to be a short sighted view IMO, but I've already given my view on that before. Suffice it to say, I'd wager that attitude would last until about 2017 or so, when it really starts to sink in that we've got nothing. I hope that we would realize that something is better than nothing in this case. JMO. I not so sure anymore that it's even going to be an option anyway.

I'm not saying that nothing is better than something. What I'm saying is you're going to have a hard time getting the PSL support necessary to get a stadium built.

Sure people would go to games, but you need to sell a very significant number of PSLs and I can't see St. Louis football fans who just had another team ripped from the city, ponying up that kind of money.

I know I personally would likely be purchasing PSLs for the Rams, but I'm not at all interested in doing that for another team. I really don't care enough about 'Replacement Team #3' to spend that kind of money.

 

[blue4]

I'm not saying that nothing is better than something. What I'm saying is you're going to have a hard time getting the PSL support necessary to get a stadium built.

Sure people would go to games, but you need to sell a very significant number of PSLs and I can't see St. Louis football fans who just had another team ripped from the city, ponying up that kind of money.

I know I personally would likely be purchasing PSLs for the Rams, but I'm not at all interested in doing that for another team. I really don't care enough about 'Replacement Team #3' to spend that kind of money.

You're probably right. PSL support seems strong for any team amongst my circle of the world, but they are rabid football fans. So I'm not sure how telling that is. Judging by what I know of my fellow residents, some sort of appeal or such by Raiders ownership would help if that unlikely scenario comes. I imagine an appeal saying, "we're considering moving, we'll willingly kick in our share, we'll sign a 30 year lease, we want to be there, etc" would go a long way. Especially after the extended fuck you from Stan.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yeah, it would be weird if you lived in the same house as your enemy. I doubt that happens.

Maybe that "nobody to LA" ploy has some merit? IDK

Nobody to LA? I may have missed something.

 

[MrMotes]

I'm not saying that nothing is better than something. What I'm saying is you're going to have a hard time getting the PSL support necessary to get a stadium built.

Sure people would go to games, but you need to sell a very significant number of PSLs and I can't see St. Louis football fans who just had another team ripped from the city, ponying up that kind of money.

I know I personally would likely be purchasing PSLs for the Rams, but I'm not at all interested in doing that for another team. I really don't care enough about 'Replacement Team #3' to spend that kind of money.

True, but if the Rams leave after 2015 and replacement team isn't until 2018 or 2020, the appetite will probably be a lot stronger by then...

 

[mr.stlouis]

Nobody to LA? I may have missed something.

Best case scenario is everybody gets stadiums built and LA gets an expansion team. But that messes with the divisions.....

I like LA being barren, personally. The big rush to get back there is just an example of the owners chasing a golden rainbow. The greed is sickening.