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.

drasconis

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
810
Name
JA
No it isn't complicated at all. I don't think for a minute that Stan or Stock bridge would "announce" anything. But I'm not so sure they could stop something that big from getting out there. At the very least reporters want something to report. Whether it be real or rumor.....

I just feel, if there is any focus on a plan B at all, details would have leaked by now. And certain reports would have been all over it.


I don't think they are hiding anything with plan B. According to the plans if the stadium isn't built the land reverts to the zoning previously approved in the dvelopment which would be commercial I bleive. It is unlikley there is a "big" single entity as a backup but more likley the land would be developed to match the surrounding development (remember the stadium is just a part ofa much larger development there). I would assume that it would be used for additional offices/praking/greenspace based on that. It is unlikley that plan B would be something large like another type of stadium or event facility. Maybe they make it a shopping center location, who knows...but it isn't something they would need to broadcast or keep quiet about either way.

503 is right there clearly is a plan B, the fact that the reversion of the zoning is noted if the stadium isn't built in the stadium plan says they are covering there bases which is only smart. But plan B, while it certainly makes them money is not likley to be another major item that anyone but Inglewood will care about.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
You know, it's hard to maintain a state of outrage for an issue in a thread that goes over 400 pages but it feels like I'm going to do it. My outrage feels as fresh now as it did on page one. My hope, however, has suffered some damage.

Anyway, for those that were curious, I'm still pissed off, yet weirdly pleased to be in a thread this epic in scope. What's funny is that there are very few facts to be had yet we've talked for almost 400 pages.

That is all. Happy Monday.
 

rick6fan

UDFA
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
58
You know, it's hard to maintain a state of outrage for an issue in a thread that goes over 400 pages but it feels like I'm going to do it. My outrage feels as fresh now as it did on page one. My hope, however, has suffered some damage.

Anyway, for those that were curious, I'm still pissed off, yet weirdly pleased to be in a thread this epic in scope. What's funny is that there are very few facts to be had yet we've talked for almost 400 pages.

That is all. Happy Monday.


Yes, I agree on the outrage and hope...the funny thing is, most of the "facts" are still open to interpretation. I've not seen any topic this "fuzzy" in a long time.
 

Corbin

THIS IS MY BOOOOOMSTICK!!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2023 Sportsbook Champion
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
12,742
You actually don't know this for sure, as none of us do, including Mayor Butts.
Dude it's going to happen, the biggest thing is when. I'm thinking the end of this year.
 

dhaab

Rookie
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
158
There's a large section of MO lawmakers who just stand in the way of progress. This is the state after all who tried to make it a crime for police to enforce federal laws that they don't like.

You do realize that states can have different laws than our Federal Government, right? Every state has the right to make it's own set of laws. It's how this country was set up.
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
23,179
Name
Dennis
You do realize that states can have different laws than our Federal Government, right? Every state has the right to make it's own set of laws. It's how this country was set up.
Don't+Mess+With+Texas+2-02.png
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
35,071
Name
Stu
yea just went back 25 pages and didn't see a single rendering that I posted or a link with them in it. (n)
Trust me... it's there. I'm not trying to get irritable with you or anything, it's just the redundancy on top of the HP demo made it a bit like piling on. No biggie - I just didn't see the need for it to stay.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
You know, it's hard to maintain a state of outrage for an issue in a thread that goes over 400 pages but it feels like I'm going to do it. My outrage feels as fresh now as it did on page one. My hope, however, has suffered some damage.

Anyway, for those that were curious, I'm still pissed off, yet weirdly pleased to be in a thread this epic in scope. What's funny is that there are very few facts to be had yet we've talked for almost 400 pages.

That is all. Happy Monday.

Facts this is all there is.

that there's NFL team in St Louis called the Rams owned by Kroenke, an NFL team in Oakland called the Raiders owned by Davis and an NFL team in San Diego called the Chargers owned by the Spanos Family.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
35,071
Name
Stu
You do realize that states can have different laws than our Federal Government, right? Every state has the right to make it's own set of laws. It's how this country was set up.
Actually - state law cannot usurp the US Constitution or Federal law. If, for example, the feds decided to make marijuana illegal by federal law, the state laws would take a back seat if the feds decided to enforce the federal law. States are given latitude in most cases if it means more personal freedom but the fed always holds the trump card.

I'm not sure how the state could actually make it a crime to enforce a federal law but I'm guessing the feds would have something to say about it. Regardless, if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the state loses. It's called the Supremacy Clause.
 

LosAngelesRams

Hall of Fame
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
3,092
think you might have to go back into the 200's, possibly the 100's...

i hear that time period had its own music too

Trust me... it's there. I'm not trying to get irritable with you or anything, it's just the redundancy on top of the HP demo made it a bit like piling on. No biggie - I just didn't see the need for it to stay.

I guess those renderings were not as new as I thought they were then. You can see how much I've been following this topic :D
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Facts this is all there is.

that there's NFL team in St Louis called the Rams owned by Kroenke, an NFL team in Oakland called the Raiders owned by Davis and an NFL team in San Diego called the Chargers owned by the Spanos Family.

And the chances of Davis keeping the Raiders became a lot more likely/easier on him with the adjustments from the owners meetings
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
14 Questions for Lawmakers Suing Over the St. Louis NFL Stadium
By Randy Karraker

http://www.101sports.com/2015/06/01/14-questions-for-lawmakers-suing-over-the-st-louis-nfl-stadium/

It was surprising to find out six Missouri legislators, half of them from the St. Louis area, have filed a suit to circumvent their own job by suing Governor Jay Nixon.

The suit alleges a law in place that allows Nixon to refinance bonds from the Edward Jones Dome to help build a new stadium for the Rams is illegal.
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon

Legislators are suing Governor Nixon over financing of the proposed stadium.

The lawmakers filed their lawsuit less than two weeks after the session, which began January 8 and ended after 71 days of deliberations, ended on May 15.

With all that time to review the law in place and change it, lawmakers instead decided to not do their job.

They chose to try and derail the future of the Rams in St. Louis through legal channels.

The Fast Lane attempted to get Rep. Tracy McCreery, D (Olivette) and Mark Parkinson, R (St. Charles) on the show, and had no success.

The other area politician involved is Rob Vescovo of Arnold. Obviously, if these “representatives” of the people win their suit, they will clear a path for Stan Kroenke to move the Rams to Los Angeles.

I had hopes that one of them would join The Fast Lane, but they wouldn’t.

Here are the questions I had prepared:

1) If this is important enough to file a lawsuit about, why didn’t lawmakers do something about it during the legislative session?

2) If you want a vote, you’ve hopefully canvassed your constituents to find out what they think. What has the response of the people who voted for you been?

3) As you’ve performed your due diligence before filing…talking to the Governor and his task force…you certainly know that time is of the essence to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Why obstruct the stadium now?

4) What do you think of the job Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz have done on the governor’s stadium task force?

5) What has your communication with the task force been like?

6) You know the numbers…players playing in St. Louis generate roughly $10 million a year in revenue for Missouri; that’s before the 2,400 game day employees, the coaches and staff that work full time at Rams Park, and the benefit generated by people using hotels and restaurants on game weekends.

Why would you think it’s beneficial to have the Rams leave?

7) What is your plan to replace the more than $12 million annual revenue generated for the region by the Rams and NFL players?

8) 23 of the 24 largest city economies in the United States are cities that have an NFL team. How do you plan to maintain the St. Louis economy in light of the fact that you’re attempting to force the team out of St. Louis?

9) The plan calls for the biggest private contribution, $450 million, for a project in St. Louis history. Why would you want to turn that down?

10) This project would provide thousands of construction, plumbing, and electrical jobs. Why would you want to deny the people that could have those positions?

11) The Rams were the Philanthropic Organization of the Year in St. Louis in 2010. D’Marco Farr and his teammates started Sack Homelessness many years ago, in which the defensive line contributes $1,000 per sack to combat homelessness.

The St. Louis Food Bank’s biggest fundraiser is Taste of the NFL, sponsored by the Rams. The team also supports Special Olympics, Heat up St. Louis, Big Brothers-Big Sisters and many, many more. What’s your plan to replace that philanthropic impact?

12) There are 2,400 game day employees and more than 100 full time employees at Rams Park that will lose their jobs if the team relocates. What’s your message to those people and their families who would lose their livelihood if you win this lawsuit?

13) I bought PSL’s 20 years ago so that my kids could experience the NFL like I did with my dad. What reason can you give to people who did the same to remove the team from the region? It’s no different than depriving them of the Zoo, parks, and other forms of entertainment.

14) If you win and the Rams leave, this will be your legacy. If the Los Angeles Rams win a Super Bowl, you will be the local names and faces of their departure. How does that make you feel?

In a similar vein, on Sunday ESPN featured Rams players William Hayes and Chris Long shining a national light on homelessness in the area. I wonder what the legislators are doing to benefit homeless people.

We are still more than happy to welcome the litigants to the show. They can reach me by e-mail at randy@101sports.com.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
And the chances of Davis keeping the Raiders became a lot more likely/easier on him with the adjustments from the owners meetings

Not really. It benefits teams like the Broncos, Colts and Chargers where there are multiple family members. The 5% is for the majority control but the family still needs to retain 30%. Plus the other changes that apply to trusts doesn't matter since according to Jason Cole 47% of the team is in Marks name and his mother only has 3% and it wouldn't apply since there are other partners that aren't family members
 
Last edited:

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Actually - state law cannot usurp the US Constitution or Federal law. If, for example, the feds decided to make marijuana illegal by federal law, the state laws would take a back seat if the feds decided to enforce the federal law. States are given latitude in most cases if it means more personal freedom but the fed always holds the trump card.

I'm not sure how the state could actually make it a crime to enforce a federal law but I'm guessing the feds would have something to say about it. Regardless, if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the state loses. It's called the Supremacy Clause.

Thank you. You explained it far better than I going to.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
You do realize that states can have different laws than our Federal Government, right? Every state has the right to make it's own set of laws. It's how this country was set up.

Yes, and no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.