New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[blue4]

That's what I said. "with the first judge asking to be removed" Starting a supposedly open and shut case on the third judge is not exactly SOP.

Everything could be perfectly above board but something smells fishy in Denmark.

Then for once something good will come of corruption. I'm being serious too. After every shady backdoor deal I see go thru my company, after every pork filled bill that goes thru congress and every corrupt trade deal if some corruption goes my way for once I say thank god finally the system works for me for once. It's not a sentiment to be proud of, but I feel comfortable wrestling with my conscience at the new stadium.

 

[den-the-coach]

Then for once something good will come of corruption. I'm being serious too. After every shady backdoor deal I see go thru my company, after every pork filled bill that goes thru congress and every corrupt trade deal if some corruption goes my way for once I say thank god finally the system works for me for once. It's not a sentiment to be proud of, but I feel comfortable wrestling with my conscience at the new stadium.

 

[RAMbler]

Vinny was a rock star in Rams clothing. Plus he lives near me and we see him from time to time. Very cool dude.

Notice the over sized helmet Pat is wearing , , oh wait.......

Hey Hacksaw, set me straight on Gammo. I've always been a fan, heck QB'd our first SB. But a friend of mine thinks he sux..., Says he deserted the Rams to play in Canada... I didn't follow very closely at that time. Why did Vince leave the Rams for Canada? Thanks in advance.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's what I said. "with the first judge asking to be removed" Starting a supposedly open and shut case on the third judge is not exactly SOP.

Everything could be perfectly above board but something smells fishy in Denmark.

The lawsuit filed by the legislatures is in a different county correct? So this suit will say they can extend the bonds this way, if the other suit says they cant, then they'll need to go to the Missouri Supreme Court to settle who is right, correct? I'm assuming they'd skip the appeals court.

 

[OldSchool]

Hey Hacksaw, set me straight on Gammo. I've always been a fan, heck QB'd our first SB. But a friend of mine thinks he sux..., Says he deserted the Rams to play in Canada... I didn't follow very closely at that time. Why did Vince leave the Rams for Canada? Thanks in advance.

It really boils down to he was the first player that Georgia refused to pay. After a stellar 1980 season he was offered a 600k contract with the CFL. He couldn't get any decent offer from the Rams so he took the cash. Played there one year and came back to the Rams. After two more good seasons with the Rams in '84 I think it was he broke his hand and was never the same. Started I think 8 games in '85 for the Bills and was pretty bad and was a backup in '86 his last year.

 

[Hacksaw]

Hey Hacksaw, set me straight on Gammo. I've always been a fan, heck QB'd our first SB. But a friend of mine thinks he sux..., Says he deserted the Rams to play in Canada... I didn't follow very closely at that time. Why did Vince leave the Rams for Canada? Thanks in advance.

2 things occured. This was one of Georgia /Shaws first big contract negotiations and the Rams refused to pay him what he wanted. It wasn't an outrageous amount but they played hardball. Similar to what they did to Fred Dryer, Bob Brudszinski, Hacksaw Reynold and later to Eric Dickerson.

Then the Montreal Allouettes offered him a much larger contract by both CFL and NFL standards at the time ($600,000, compared to $250,000 the Rams offered him, and the $47,500 they had paid him for 1980.) He opted for the jack but his game went south up north.

 

[Hacksaw]

jinx old school. lol

 

[RamFan503]

Okay I was at the Rams vs. Giants game in December of 81 and the wind was blowing. The Rams lost the game 10-7 because your man could not throw the football more than 20 yards against a stiff wind. Spiral or not Ferragamo could throw it through a brick wall.

Another thing about your man Pat, he was the one that went to Rosenbloom in 1978 about George Allen because Allen asked the Rhode Scholar to pick up a piece of paper while he was walking into the locker room after practice.

I respect Pat Haden from the neck up, but he was a curse to the Rams. He cost the Rams Ron Jaworski who they traded to the Eagles and James Harris who they traded to the Chargers. Then he stunk it up and they went for old man river in Joe Willie Namath in 1977.

Fast Forward to after 1980 When Vince Ferragamo threw 30 touchdowns and led the Rams to a 11-5 record the Rams let Ferragamo walk because of shorty pants and thus they went 6-10 and finished the year with another washed up signal caller in Dante Pastorini because Haden was awful...That's right, awful!

Rams then give up draft choices in 1982 for Bert Jones and bring back Ferragamo so they never have to deal with that pea shooter of an arm ever, ever, ever again!

Pat Haden great guy was curse for the Rams!!!!! Rant.

Yeah but I was the smallest guy on our team so...

 

[RamFan503]

Then for once something good will come of corruption. I'm being serious too. After every shady backdoor deal I see go thru my company, after every pork filled bill that goes thru congress and every corrupt trade deal if some corruption goes my way for once I say thank god finally the system works for me for once. It's not a sentiment to be proud of, but I feel comfortable wrestling with my conscience at the new stadium.

Yeah... I'm not even saying this isn't the way things get done. Sad but probably true. At least your take is pretty straight up. The problem I have with it is they are going to stand there and act like the other side is sleazy while they are likely pulling the same or worse crap.

 

[8to12]

I don't really see how this is a big story to many. If this is a sign that the team will apply for relocation, didn't we already know this stuff? For everyone who wants to make this a big story what if the contracts are renewed in February since they run from Feb to Feb? What then? The bottom line for me is that everyone assumes that Kroenke wants to be in L.A. and if that's the case then how is this earth shattering news? It still comes down to what the NFL chooses to do. This news really doesn't affect the outcome nor is it a sign of what the outcome will be.

dbrooks, you are right, it's not earth shattering news. However, it's just speculation for some to say that Kroenke wants to move to LA. There is no proof. But, the Rams moving contract dates with some of their business partners in St Louis, which aligns with relocation application deadlines, could be circumstantial evidence.

 

[den-the-coach]

Yeah but I was the smallest guy on our team so...

Well, it it's any consolation in all my years of High School, Air Force & College Football (Division III) it was always the little guys that gave me the most trouble.

 

[blue4]

Yeah... I'm not even saying this isn't the way things get done. Sad but probably true. At least your take is pretty straight up. The problem I have with it is they are going to stand there and act like the other side is sleazy while they are likely pulling the same or worse crap.

Oh you know it. The sad fact of life is that Kroenke probably recognises what they are doing and is thinking, "oh I remember doing that in '01. Those were good times." That's the thing. Stan probably respects them more for trying to stack the deck. Oddly, it's only the little people who feel strangely about it. You know, the people who billionaires demonize every election for sponging off the government.

 

[iced]

Yeah... I'm not even saying this isn't the way things get done. Sad but probably true. At least your take is pretty straight up. The problem I have with it is they are going to stand there and act like the other side is sleazy while they are likely pulling the same or worse crap.

I think what matters more is what its better for the city - it's like any other kind of investment. And when you have another sport, that's another added source of revenue for the city - not just the gov't itself but the local economy: restaurants, bars,clubs, advertisers, etc.

in the end, everyone benefits - including the revenues that don't go to the city or the NFL, but to the tax payers and working residents.

 

[den-the-coach]

2 things occured. This was one of Georgia /Shaws first big contract negotiations and the Rams refused to pay him what he wanted. It wasn't an outrageous amount but they played hardball. Similar to what they did to Fred Dryer, Bob Brudszinski, Hacksaw Reynold and later to Eric Dickerson.

Then the Montreal Allouettes offered him a much larger contract by both CFL and NFL standards at the time ($600,000, compared to $250,000 the Rams offered him, and the $47,500 they had paid him for 1980.) He opted for the jack but his game went south up north.

Ferragamo came back to the Rams in 1982 and rescheduled from the trade they made for Bert Jones who was done. This is why I always felt that John Shaw at times was penny wise and dollar foolish. They played hard ball with Ferragamo, but then traded for Bert Jones giving up draft choices and paid him well and then he was gone in less than a year.

Ferragamo had a solid year in 82 and then led the Rams back to the playoffs under first year Head Coach John Robinson in 1983 where he threw for 22 touchdowns 23 int's in a run friendly offense. Was injured in the third game of 1984 and was dealt to Buffalo in 1985 as the Rams paid CFL QB Dieter Brock to come to the NFL.

Overall IMO if the Rams had kept Vince things would have been different. He had a great year in 1980 and there is no reason to think he would have not been an upper echelon signal caller. Going to the CFL did ruin him, but at that time Millionaire (which was rich in the 80's) Nelson Sckalbania had purchased the Montreal Alouettes and wanted to make a big splash and Ferragamo was his big splash, but it did not work out.

 

[iced]

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2015/06/05/NFL-LA.aspx

Carmen Policy: NFL Owners Want L.A. Teams To Be Equal Partners
By Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer

Published June 5, 2015

NFL owners prefer that if two teams move to the L.A. area, they do so simultaneously and are equal partners in a new stadium, said Carmen Policy, who is overseeing the Chargers' and Raiders' efforts to potentially build a stadium in Carson, Calif. By contrast, Rams Owner Stan Kroenke has already by himself bought the land to build a stadium in Inglewood, Calif. While he could at this stage bring on another team on as an equal partner, he already is working with a real estate developer.

A source said that at the NFL L.A. Committee meeting next Wednesday in N.Y., a key issue will be the terms of a potential lease for a second team in a building. The committee will take a look at all the possible permutations of which teams work best together. Policy emphasized that the owners do not want one team as a tenant in a building with another in control.

 

[OldSchool]

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2015/06/05/NFL-LA.aspx

Carmen Policy: NFL Owners Want L.A. Teams To Be Equal Partners
By Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer

Published June 5, 2015

NFL owners prefer that if two teams move to the L.A. area, they do so simultaneously and are equal partners in a new stadium, said Carmen Policy, who is overseeing the Chargers' and Raiders' efforts to potentially build a stadium in Carson, Calif. By contrast, Rams Owner Stan Kroenke has already by himself bought the land to build a stadium in Inglewood, Calif. While he could at this stage bring on another team on as an equal partner, he already is working with a real estate developer.

A source said that at the NFL L.A. Committee meeting next Wednesday in N.Y., a key issue will be the terms of a potential lease for a second team in a building. The committee will take a look at all the possible permutations of which teams work best together. Policy emphasized that the owners do not want one team as a tenant in a building with another in control.

One thing has and never will change, I don't believe a thing that comes out of Carmen Policy's pie hole.

 

[bluecoconuts]

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2015/06/05/NFL-LA.aspx

Carmen Policy: NFL Owners Want L.A. Teams To Be Equal Partners
By Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer

Published June 5, 2015

NFL owners prefer that if two teams move to the L.A. area, they do so simultaneously and are equal partners in a new stadium, said Carmen Policy, who is overseeing the Chargers' and Raiders' efforts to potentially build a stadium in Carson, Calif. By contrast, Rams Owner Stan Kroenke has already by himself bought the land to build a stadium in Inglewood, Calif. While he could at this stage bring on another team on as an equal partner, he already is working with a real estate developer.

A source said that at the NFL L.A. Committee meeting next Wednesday in N.Y., a key issue will be the terms of a potential lease for a second team in a building. The committee will take a look at all the possible permutations of which teams work best together. Policy emphasized that the owners do not want one team as a tenant in a building with another in control.

Funny he should say that, given that Carson isn't an equal split. Oops.

 

[RamFan503]

I think what matters more is what its better for the city - it's like any other kind of investment. And when you have another sport, that's another added source of revenue for the city - not just the gov't itself but the local economy: restaurants, bars,clubs, advertisers, etc.

in the end, everyone benefits - including the revenues that don't go to the city or the NFL, but to the tax payers and working residents.

I think what matters more is that people in PUBLIC office actually do what the voters have told them that they want. Maybe it's a pipe dream but when the voters overwhelmingly pass an ordinance, the PUBLIC officials should do everything in their power to see it through rather than try to do an end around. And that includes figuring out a solution to make it work legally if it has some poorly written language that only gives someone a way to challenge it knowing full well what the ordinance and the voters have said.

I am sick of our PUBLIC office holders and employees thinking they know best and will do whatever they feel is right no matter what the voters have said. Why the hell do we think the voter feels disenfranchised? Because their vote ends up being meaningless. And then when they have an opportunity to vote and even likely pass the funding for a stadium, they are swept aside because the last thing they voted on is being ripped up by the very people empowered to see that it is enforced.

They knew this ordinance existed. They could have had a public vote on it. But they are choosing not to under the guise of too many delays. Sorry but the delays were on their part - not the ordinance, nor the public that they supposedly represent.

This ends justifies the means crap really turns my stomach frankly.

 

[iced]

I think what matters more is that people in PUBLIC office actually do what the voters have told them that they want. Maybe it's a pipe dream but when the voters overwhelmingly pass an ordinance, the PUBLIC officials should do everything in their power to see it through rather than try to do an end around. And that includes figuring out a solution to make it work legally if it has some poorly written language that only gives someone a way to challenge it knowing full well what the ordinance and the voters have said.


They knew this ordinance existed. They could have had a public vote on it. But they are choosing not to under the guise of too many delays. Sorry but the delays were on their part - not the ordinance, nor the public that they supposedly represent.

This ends justifies the means crap really turns my stomach frankly.

I can't fault them for taking their time in the same token - we all know what mess Peacock walked into to, and i don't think he should shoulder any of the blame.

They've known about this ordinance - and even tried to figure out through the courts awhile ago if this was a process they could use. Whether its some kind of inclination the courts have given them or just plain confidence, If it wasn't over turned then then I fail to see how it would be an issue now...Especially since its only 6 legislators, out of 200'ish, that take issue with it - including those from KC who renovated their own stadiums through funds.

I really don't expect much to change - all seems like an attempt to slow things down, which is ironic since its because of the Riverfront stadium deal that the NFL accelerated the timeline.

I am sick of our PUBLIC office holders and employees thinking they know best and will do whatever they feel is right no matter what the voters have said. Why the hell do we think the voter feels disenfranchised? Because their vote ends up being meaningless. And then when they have an opportunity to vote and even likely pass the funding for a stadium, they are swept aside because the last thing they voted on is being ripped up by the very people empowered to see that it is enforced.

don't even get me started on our political system as a whole....

 

[RamFan503]

I can't fault them for taking their time in the same token - we all know what mess Peacock walked into to, and i don't think he should shoulder any of the blame.

Peacock? No. Me either.

They've known about this ordinance - and even tried to figure out through the courts awhile ago if this was a process they could use. Whether its some kind of inclination the courts have given them or just plain confidence, If it wasn't over turned then then I fail to see how it would be an issue now...Especially since its only 6 legislators, out of 200'ish, that take issue with it - including those from KC who renovated their own stadiums through funds.

Two different things. The ordinance isn't what is being challenged by the 6 legislators. The ordinance is what I am most pissed about. The Stadium Authority and those involved in the Riverfront Stadium plan are suing to have it thrown out because it stands in their way - period. They know what the voters wanted and simply don't give a damn. The extension of the bonds is something the courts will have to look at to see if the wording fits the governor's interpretation of it. If it indeed allows for the extension of the bond for use on another stadium then it does. It seems to fit that the voters passed a bond that essentially was to bring the NFL to St Louis. I wouldn't think they intended to only bring them there temporarily.

The problem I have with the other is that the voters clearly saw this as a possibility that at some future time, the government would try to spend tax dollars on building another stadium. It is painfully obvious that they were saying, "not without a vote, you're not."