New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dieterbrock]

The scary thing is that if he can extend the bonds on the stadium based upon a law from almost 20 years ago, could that the same precedence be used again for something else. The adjacent argument doesn't hold but the real question is did the bill authorize the building of one stadium or did it allow them to build stadiums forever. That's why this is in court and it's not about the legislatures inaction but the wording of the original bill.

Yeah I dont see the whole adjacent thing either. The bonds were drawn for the purposes of the Dome and if they are extended it should be to make the improvements to the dome. The CVC has acknowledged it could use upgrades so the whole thing seems shady to me.

Shady, but not necassarily illegal.

I mean somebody could refinance their house, pull out equity and use that to buy another property. Not in the spirit of what the equity is to be used for, but not illegal either. Not the same thing, I get that but somewhat similar

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yeah can't say I am putting any stock in her tweet. She is all over the map with this stuff.

I think its safe to say she has no idea what she's talking about. Probably one of, if not the worst, person to take anything from. Like others said, she said Rams were announcing a move in August and that it was a done deal.

Correction
Apparently on this tweet she was quoting Carson's Mayor


I didn't see any mention of Mayor Robles on her twitter account but enough people commented that it did come from him so I thought I should put in the disclaimer.

Frankly I wouldn't listen to him either, he seems pretty dumb too.

 

[The Ripper]

Yeah I dont see the whole adjacent thing either. The bonds were drawn for the purposes of the Dome and if they are extended it should be to make the improvements to the dome. The CVC has acknowledged it could use upgrades so the whole thing seems shady to me.

Shady, but not necassarily illegal.

I mean somebody could refinance their house, pull out equity and use that to buy another property. Not in the spirit of what the equity is to be used for, but not illegal either. Not the same thing, I get that but somewhat similar

Not illegal but depending on how the loan was originally set up the lender could accelerate the loan and demand repayment.

Shady is definitely the word for this

 

[dieterbrock]

Not illegal but depending on how the loan was originally set up the lender could accelerate the loan and demand repayment.

Shady is definitely the word for this

Right.

Shady for sure.

 

[Sum1]

Yeah I dont see the whole adjacent thing either. The bonds were drawn for the purposes of the Dome and if they are extended it should be to make the improvements to the dome. The CVC has acknowledged it could use upgrades so the whole thing seems shady to me.

Shady, but not necassarily illegal.

I mean somebody could refinance their house, pull out equity and use that to buy another property. Not in the spirit of what the equity is to be used for, but not illegal either. Not the same thing, I get that but somewhat similar

I believe part of the 985m number has upgrades to the dome included.

I also believe that the bonds have a 50 year renewal...so the thought that they can just get renewed forever is not accurate.

The argument that the building would be adjacent is up to interpretation for sure. I think the idea that the new stadium is adjacent is very compelling...it is a short walk from the existing dome and it would be controlled under the same authority and work in conjunction with the existing facility as it would allow for increased events in both specifically and solely the dome as well as events that would utilize both buildings.

 

[Angry Ram]

The scary thing is that if he can extend the bonds on the stadium based upon a law from almost 20 years ago, could that the same precedence be used again for something else. The adjacent argument doesn't hold but the real question is did the bill authorize the building of one stadium or did it allow them to build stadiums forever. That's why this is in court and it's not about the legislatures inaction but the wording of the original bill.

Well, OK then.

 

[blue4]

Yeah I dont see the whole adjacent thing either. The bonds were drawn for the purposes of the Dome and if they are extended it should be to make the improvements to the dome. The CVC has acknowledged it could use upgrades so the whole thing seems shady to me.

Shady, but not necassarily illegal.

I mean somebody could refinance their house, pull out equity and use that to buy another property. Not in the spirit of what the equity is to be used for, but not illegal either. Not the same thing, I get that but somewhat similar

You want out of a rotten neighborhood for your kids bad enough you'll use the equity in one house to buy another in a better neighborhood. Then you rent the other out to cover costs. I know, I had to do it. And I'm sure Stan has pulled far worse on his way to a billion. Normally I'd agree with those who want a lawsuit or some sort of vote. Problem is, forces outside of Missouri's control have made that type of delay impossible. If you want the team, the revitalization, the high paying construction jobs, and the revenue you do what's best for the state and the city and then let the legislature do what it wants in regards to future scenarios. That's my opinion.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I believe part of the 985m number has upgrades to the dome included.

I also believe that the bonds have a 50 year renewal...so the thought that they can just get renewed forever is not accurate.

The argument that the building would be adjacent is up to interpretation for sure. I think the idea that the new stadium is adjacent is very compelling...it is a short walk from the existing dome and it would be controlled under the same authority and work in conjunction with the existing facility as it would allow for increased events in both specifically and solely the dome as well as events that would utilize both buildings.

What happens if Stan doesn't want to invest any money unless he gets to own and operate the stadium?

Example, say he gets turned down for LA. So he goes back to St Louis and says, okay, but I want to own and operate it. I'll buy the land from you that you acquired, lowering your total, and pay.

Would removing the stadium authority from the equation ruin that adjacent argument?

Of course at that point they could just do a vote, which would probably pass easily with the fans knowing Stan wants to stay, I'm just wondering how the argument works. It certainly seems like they're violating the spirit of the law about 10 different ways to be honest. I suppose you can argue the ends justify the means, I'm just not big on that kind of maneuver around a law. Even if it was the "give everyone beer and disease free hookers bill".

 

[Goose]

Rams Head Coach Jeff Fisher addresses upcoming season plans
POSTED 9:39 AM, JUNE 3, 2015, BY STAFF WRITER


ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) – Rams head coach Jeff Fisher joins us in studio to discuss the upcoming season and addresses his position on the team’s potential move to L.A.

“My position on all this is simple. I’ve not asked so I can say I don’t know. It’s my focus to eliminate the distraction,” Fisher said.

Although Fisher does not know the plans for the stadium, he acknowledges how many people are working behind the scenes, trying to set up something so the team can stay in St. Louis.

While fans are focused on the potential move, Fisher is looking forward to the upcoming season.

“We’re going to play here this year and we are going to have a good football team,” Fisher said.

By Emma Rechenberg

http://fox2now.com/2015/06/03/rams-head-coach-jeff-fisher-addresses-upcoming-season-plans/

 

[The Ripper]

I believe part of the 985m number has upgrades to the dome included.

I also believe that the bonds have a 50 year renewal...so the thought that they can just get renewed forever is not accurate.

The argument that the building would be adjacent is up to interpretation for sure. I think the idea that the new stadium is adjacent is very compelling...it is a short walk from the existing dome and it would be controlled under the same authority and work in conjunction with the existing facility as it would allow for increased events in both specifically and solely the dome as well as events that would utilize both buildings.

If the bonds were extended it would be well past 50 years. The 985 does not include upgrades to the dome.

It comes down to wording of the bill.

http://stlrsa.org/enabling_legislation.html

 

[WillasDad]

I know why they did it, but I think the powers that be in St. Louis who are trying to keep an NFL team ultimately get nowhere relying on the NFL to stop the Rams from moving. I don't see the NFL coming back anytime soon should the Rams leave. They really should've kept their focus on doing everything in their power to wine and dine SK and give him a strong reason to stay instead of demonizing him like they have. He hasn't made himself available? Try harder. Pissing off the owner gets you nowhere real quick.

And frankly, how does it look to bigger markets cities waiting for their chance to get an NFL team if St. Louis gets a third bite of the apple by getting another team should the Rams leave. These are tough times for the people of St. Louis. Your leaders played this all wrong imo.

 

[Sum1]

What happens if Stan doesn't want to invest any money unless he gets to own and operate the stadium?

Example, say he gets turned down for LA. So he goes back to St Louis and says, okay, but I want to own and operate it. I'll buy the land from you that you acquired, lowering your total, and pay.

Would removing the stadium authority from the equation ruin that adjacent argument?

Of course at that point they could just do a vote, which would probably pass easily with the fans knowing Stan wants to stay, I'm just wondering how the argument works. It certainly seems like they're violating the spirit of the law about 10 different ways to be honest. I suppose you can argue the ends justify the means, I'm just not big on that kind of maneuver around a law. Even if it was the "give everyone beer and disease free hookers bill".

How can we have any kind of reasonable discussion with a moving "yeah but what if" constantly?

What if he doesn't say that? What if the deal is the option he wanted all along if LA was off the table? What if you aunt had balls? What if the idea that Stan doesn't own the team really does come to fruition? What if Stan says to hell with STL and LA? What if Stan moves to LA and rebrands the team?

It would be one thing if we had some real information that would suggest that this is something Stan might do but with absolutely ZERO words coming out of his mouth that is a purely fabricated speculation based on nothing. We could go on literally until the end of our days with that kind of stuff...

 

[den-the-coach]

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) – Rams head coach Jeff Fisher joins us in studio to discuss the upcoming season and addresses his position on the team’s potential move to L.A.

“My position on all this is simple. I’ve not asked so I can say I don’t know. It’s my focus to eliminate the distraction,” Fisher said.

Thomas reported back in 2012 one of the hangups with Fisher was that Kroenke could not guarantee him that a move would not take place because Fisher actually had to move the Oiler/Titan franchise twice...So I'm sure Fisher's thinking "Here we go again."

 

[blue4]

I know why they did it, but I think the powers that be in St. Louis who are trying to keep an NFL team ultimately get nowhere relying on the NFL to stop the Rams from moving. I don't see the NFL coming back anytime soon should the Rams leave. They really should've kept their focus on doing everything in their power to wine and dine SK and give him a strong reason to stay instead of demonizing him like they have. He hasn't made himself available? Try harder. Pissing off the owner gets you nowhere real quick.

And frankly, how does it look to bigger markets cities waiting for their chance to get an NFL team if St. Louis gets a third bite of the apple by getting another team should the Rams leave. These are tough times for the people of St. Louis. Your leaders played this all wrong imo.

This would have only worked if Stan had any intention of staying in the first place.

And LA has lost three teams and are getting one again. Outside of the public/private money discussion this deal will have the same effect on future deals like previous ones have had on this deal. None. Nothing at all. If the deal is right, the owner's rich enough, no one cares what came before.

Exhibit A being the Cleveland/LA/LA live from Anaheim/St Louis/whoops back to LA Rams.

 

[bluecoconuts]

How can we have any kind of reasonable discussion with a moving "yeah but what if" constantly?

What if he doesn't say that? What if the deal is the option he wanted all along if LA was off the table? What if you aunt had balls? What if the idea that Stan doesn't own the team really does come to fruition? What if Stan says to hell with STL and LA? What if Stan moves to LA and rebrands the team?

It would be one thing if we had some real information that would suggest that this is something Stan might do but with absolutely ZERO words coming out of his mouth that is a purely fabricated speculation based on nothing. We could go on literally until the end of our days with that kind of stuff...

I was more talking about the question of how they're justifying 'adjacent', because the entire thing seems pretty muddy to me and I'm trying to figure out what the arguments in court are going to be. In terms of what ifs and hypotheticals, isn't that what most of the thread is anyway?

I think that ultimately the courts will rule in the favor of Nixon, but I'm trying to figure out just how much that'll help St Louis. Ultimately it could come back to hurt them.

Assuming Kroenke really wants LA, then we can assume he's going to prepare one hell of an argument to convince other owners not only is his project better, but St Louis isn't a realistic option for him. If I'm Kroenke, and given he has a ton of guys much smarter than me on his team I have to guess they've thought of this, I'm telling the owners that by using various loopholes, the St Louis plan isn't really all that viable, even if they get the okay. I tell them that I'm not going to rush out of my current lease, and that it's going to take a while for us to negotiate a stadium that works and makes me excited. I point out the troubles had previously negotiating, and with LA off the table, I note that it could go on for a long time. I then note that once the bonds end, and they can't extend with the loopholes I'm stuck without a deal. I also question why they went with loopholes instead of a vote, suggest maybe they don't have confidence a vote would pass. Therefore if they deny me LA, I'm essentially stuck without a deal for the foreseeable future in a market that doesn't want me as an owner, thus they should let me move. If I'm Stan, even if I like the Riverfront stadium, I probably make that argument, assuming that Inglewood is indeed Plan A.

Essentially what I'm wondering is, is Nixon and the task force ultimately hurting them by trying to speed it up with loopholes? I think that most people would support the new stadium if put to a ballot, but I think there's a decent amount of people who don't like how they're using various loopholes to push it through without giving anyone a voice. Especially in a conservative state, that's typically big government overreach type stuff. The speed they're getting things done is remarkable, but with the backlash they've gotten from a few places, can it ultimately hurt their efforts?

A special election is costly, difficult, and unpredictable, but if it had passed then there's not a lot that Stan could argue there. Exploiting loopholes seems to give him extra ammo in my opinion.

 

[bluecoconuts]

This would have only worked if Stan had any intention of staying in the first place.

And LA has lost three teams and are getting one again. Outside of the public/private money discussion this deal will have the same effect on future deals like previous ones have had on this deal. None. Nothing at all. If the deal is right, the owner's rich enough, no one cares what came before.

Exhibit A being the Cleveland/LA/LA live from Anaheim/St Louis/whoops back to LA Rams.

Ehhhh, I really feel that the Chargers shouldn't count. They came to LA at the worst time, Rams were big, UCLA and USC were big, the Lakers had just come to LA, and the Chargers tried to shove their way into the crowd... Then gave up after a year when they never really gave anyone a chance to even notice they were there. It would be one thing if they had some history and tradition and left because of various reasons, but they came in at a really stupid time and then never even tried.

 

[WillasDad]

This would have only worked if Stan had any intention of staying in the first place.

And LA has lost three teams and are getting one again. Outside of the public/private money discussion this deal will have the same effect on future deals like previous ones have had on this deal. None. Nothing at all. If the deal is right, the owner's rich enough, no one cares what came before.

Exhibit A being the Cleveland/LA/LA live from Anaheim/St Louis/whoops back to LA Rams.

Nobody knew then and nobody knows now whether St. Louis truly had a chance to keep the Rams. I think there was a legit chance for several years to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Noe though, after the strategy the CVC and now, the Peacock group have taken, focusing on the NFL to force the Rams to stay, I think we can all agree SK would be less inclined to listen to anything from the St. Louis groups at this point.

 

[blue4]

Ehhhh, I really feel that the Chargers shouldn't count. They came to LA at the worst time, Rams were big, UCLA and USC were big, the Lakers had just come to LA, and the Chargers tried to shove their way into the crowd... Then gave up after a year when they never really gave anyone a chance to even notice they were there. It would be one thing if they had some history and tradition and left because of various reasons, but they came in at a really stupid time and then never even tried.

That's exactly my point. Situations are different and if ST Louis loses this team, it will be under complicated circumstances as well. It will have no bearing on a future team if the money's right and there is ownership here.

 

[blue4]

Nobody knew then and nobody knows now whether St. Louis truly had a chance to keep the Rams. I think there was a legit chance for several years to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Noe though, after the strategy the CVC and now, the Peacock group have taken, focusing on the NFL to force the Rams to stay, I think we can all agree SK would be less inclined to listen to anything from the St. Louis groups at this point.

Well, we've covered what the CVC could have actually done in regards to a new stadium. So no point going over that again.

As for Peacock's tactics? Well, if he already knew that Stan was intent on leaving then his strategy makes a heck of a lot more sense. If you believe as I do that this was at least big in Stan's mind in 2010, then I don't see what else he could have done.

 

[Sum1]

If the bonds were extended it would be well past 50 years. The 985 does not include upgrades to the dome.

It comes down to wording of the bill.

http://stlrsa.org/enabling_legislation.html

Can you please elaborate?

If the bonds were extended it would be well past 50 years. The 985 does not include upgrades to the dome.

It comes down to wording of the bill.

http://stlrsa.org/enabling_legislation.html

I was more talking about the question of how they're justifying 'adjacent', because the entire thing seems pretty muddy to me and I'm trying to figure out what the arguments in court are going to be. In terms of what ifs and hypotheticals, isn't that what most of the thread is anyway?

I think that ultimately the courts will rule in the favor of Nixon, but I'm trying to figure out just how much that'll help St Louis. Ultimately it could come back to hurt them.

Assuming Kroenke really wants LA, then we can assume he's going to prepare one hell of an argument to convince other owners not only is his project better, but St Louis isn't a realistic option for him. If I'm Kroenke, and given he has a ton of guys much smarter than me on his team I have to guess they've thought of this, I'm telling the owners that by using various loopholes, the St Louis plan isn't really all that viable, even if they get the okay. I tell them that I'm not going to rush out of my current lease, and that it's going to take a while for us to negotiate a stadium that works and makes me excited. I point out the troubles had previously negotiating, and with LA off the table, I note that it could go on for a long time. I then note that once the bonds end, and they can't extend with the loopholes I'm stuck without a deal. I also question why they went with loopholes instead of a vote, suggest maybe they don't have confidence a vote would pass. Therefore if they deny me LA, I'm essentially stuck without a deal for the foreseeable future in a market that doesn't want me as an owner, thus they should let me move. If I'm Stan, even if I like the Riverfront stadium, I probably make that argument, assuming that Inglewood is indeed Plan A.

Essentially what I'm wondering is, is Nixon and the task force ultimately hurting them by trying to speed it up with loopholes? I think that most people would support the new stadium if put to a ballot, but I think there's a decent amount of people who don't like how they're using various loopholes to push it through without giving anyone a voice. Especially in a conservative state, that's typically big government overreach type stuff. The speed they're getting things done is remarkable, but with the backlash they've gotten from a few places, can it ultimately hurt their efforts?

A special election is costly, difficult, and unpredictable, but if it had passed then there's not a lot that Stan could argue there. Exploiting loopholes seems to give him extra ammo in my opinion.

My discussion points are not in that manner. My point is that when there is legitimate material being discussed taking something totally made up to be the basis of a counter argument is futile.

What has been said is that NFL to this point is encouraging the STL task force and Governor Nixon to progress with the plan they have laid out. What happens if Kroenke doesn't want to play ball with that? Who knows? How can any of us reasonable answer that with the lack of information about his stance on this? The info that IS out there generally says that Kroenke does not intend to go rogue. I think at this point the idea has been presented. There are no guarantees with the NFL and they can't be 100% trusted...but the closest thing to that is the NFL encouraging STL to continue on their process, Kroenke doesn't intend to go rogue. Kroenke wants to be in LA but it has also been suggested pretty firmly that Kroenke also desires options.


The public vote argument has been beat to death. I respect the opinion of those that think it is necessary, but I think at this point the arguments have been presented on both sides of that and the reasoning of why the timeline is such a large factor in that has also been laid out. At this point it's all subjective to each individual.

For myself personally...I've stated before, I've got a vested interest in the Rams but more than anything I want to see what is best for my city. Keeping the NFL and building this stadium has so many more net positives than negatives it is entirely comical to me to see arguments against it.

I also really have appreciated many of your points throughout this thread, and a lot of them have had me doing more research and critical thinking than I care to admit...