New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[blue4]

I don't Carson was the site back when the NFL choose Houston over Los Angeles because of that very fact and Robert McNair, but IMO, Carson is leverage and again JMO, they will never break ground!

My feeling all along has been the Riverfront Project in St. Louis because IMO, that has a much better chance and with the Arch in some of the drawings would be something the NFL would embrace just like Inglewood.

I sure hope you're right about riverfront.

 

[The Ripper]

LA enthusiasts claim Inglewood has been quiet because it is ready. Can't we not say the same about STL's financing. Nixon has said it will be ready. So the only thing truly new on the matter is it not being ready. Nothing has pointed to hindering STL's public financing other than some rather weak lawsuits that Nixon has all but shot down. For example, one wants to determine if the stadium is "adjacent" to the CVC. Their case is its across the street (HA!). I mean come on.

If it's a week lawsuit how come he hasn't extended the bonds yet? There's no injunction. The RSA has the ability to issue bonds so why are they extending bonds instead of doing a new offering. Bond extension aren't typical for financing a new project. The adjacent argument will depend on the judge.

 

[iced]

If it's a week lawsuit how come he hasn't extended the bonds yet? There's no injunction. The RSA has the ability to issue bonds so why are they extending bonds instead of doing a new offering. Bond extension aren't typical for financing a new project. The adjacent argument will depend on the judge.

That's a weak argument - Peacock and Nixon attempted several times before the law suits through the courts to get answers but to no avail.

 

[iced]

I think that's looking at it from the wrong angle.

It's not going to be "Either take a lesser cut of the pie in Inglewood or a larger cut of the pie in Carson"

If the NFL wants Inglewood, it's going to be "We're going with Inglewood, so either take a less of a cut of the pie there, or make it work in San Diego."

Inglewood or nothing, not Inglewood or Carson.

It's most definitely Inglewood or Carson - not inglewood or nothing. Wow, that's about a narrow of view point as I've seen on here.

You seem to be believe Kroenke can/will do what he want,regardless if the NFL tells him no, will go against the NFL if told no despite rumors and indications otherwise, Inglewood is the cure all plan (Which abandons St.Louis and atleast 1 owner), and trying to pass Carson off as if it's not a viable alternative as fact , despite the fact that the NFL treating it as it's a very realistic possibility.

May as well as talk to a wall at this point

 

[iced]

It's also been said Kroenke has the votes to block Spanos so they will have to work together if either one wants to go to LA.

Lol got a link? First I've EVER heard of something like this - it's the other way around normally

 

[The Ripper]

That's a weak argument - Peacock and Nixon attempted several times before the law suits through the courts to get answers but to no avail.

They only asked the attorney general. The city lawsuit was initiated by them but that has nothing to do with extending the bonds, it's just on the vote in the city.

 

[The Ripper]

Lol got a link? First I've EVER heard of something like this - it's the other way around normally

Jason Cole has said it and multiple other reporters that have been on the radio in LA, SD and St Louis. Others have said no one has the votes for relocation.

 

[iced]

Jason Cole has said it and multiple other reporters that have been on the radio in LA, SD and St Louis. Others have said no one has the votes for relocation.

link it

everything i find on cole is Spanos blocking kroenke, not the other way around

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...y-Blocking-Kroenke-From-Los-Angeles-Move.aspx

Cole on the radio:

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...Talks-Kroenke-Spanos-and-the-Rams-Future.aspx

I'm extremely skeptical of what you said - i would have expected that to have been reported, which to my knowledge never has nor is showing up in google

More of the same, Kevin Acee, June 10th

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...n-Says-Spanos-has-Votes-to-Block-Kroenke.aspx

 

[The Ripper]

I am not going through hours of radio interviews. It has been said no one has the votes for relocation.

 

[mr.stlouis]

If it's a week lawsuit how come he hasn't extended the bonds yet? There's no injunction. The RSA has the ability to issue bonds so why are they extending bonds instead of doing a new offering. Bond extension aren't typical for financing a new project. The adjacent argument will depend on the judge.

That's a great question. I have not ran across that one, yet. For one thing there is another impending law suit on the whether the Nixon can extend the bonds without a public vote. The MO budget was passed no concession to limit the Nixon's authority on the matter. Its perfectly legal. But like a said, case is still open.

In my opinion, that's not the only reason. I'm sure Peacock and Blitz are leaving the window open in case a new developement comes up to which they can potentially cut out less tax payer dollars. They have already done that once. It was a tax credit to some company that allowed a 100 million dollars to be taken off the books. No reason to lock the door if you are still visiting with company.

Of course, nobody's stadium has been approved by the NFL. They could be waiting for that to play out, too.

I know Stan's financing plan has not been made clear to the public. Seems nobody is worried about that. Does he even have one or does he have a hand-shake deal with the NFL to keep up the heat on SD and Oakland. That has worked out extremely well if that's the case. Carson wouldn't be where it's at without Stan turning up the heat.

 

[The Ripper]

That's a great question. I have not ran across that one, yet. For one thing there is another impending law suit on the whether the Nixon can extend the bonds without a public vote. The MO budget was passed no concession to limit the Nixon's authority on the matter. Its perfectly legal. But like a said, case is still open.

In my opinion, that's not the only reason. I'm sure Peacock and Blitz are leaving the window open in case a new developement comes up to which they can potentially cut out less tax payer dollars. They have already done that once. It was a tax credit to some company that allowed a 100 million dollars to be taken off the books. No reason to lock the door if you are still visiting with company.

Of course, nobody's stadium has been approved by the NFL. They could be waiting for that to play out, too.

I know Stan's financing plan has not been made clear to the public. Seems nobody is worried about that. Does he even have one or does he have a hand-shake deal with the NFL to keep up the heat on SD and Oakland. That has worked out extremely well if that's the case. Carson wouldn't be where it's at without Stan turning up the heat.

Even if the they were able to add the provision to the budget it still wouldn't have changed the the original legislation that set up the STLRSA so it would have been Nixon who sued. It's probably too risky to extend the bonds without some kind of guarantee from the NFL that St Louis would have a team. He can't run again but there could be fallout to others if they extended the bonds and the NFL rejected St Louis.

 

[RamBill]

Carmen Policy says we’ll know who and where teams will be playing in LA before SB 50. He joined Movin the Chains with Jim Miller and Pat Kirwan to talk about the LA stadium situation. He is point man for the Carson Project.

Listen to Policy Talk LA Stadium Situation

 

[iced]

I am not going through hours of radio interviews. It has been said no one has the votes for relocation.

There's a difference between "no one having votes" and saying "Kroenke has the votes to block spanos"

One is true, and one is pure conjecture. I don't know if maybe you misheard or something but it has never been reported anywhere that "Kroenke has the votes to block Spanos" - however there are countless articles of the other way. Also, Jason Cole has only reported Spanos having the votes to block him; not the opposite.

 

[OldSchool]

There's a difference between "no one having votes" and saying "Kroenke has the votes to block spanos"

One is true, and one is pure conjecture. I don't know if maybe you misheard or something but it has never been reported anywhere that "Kroenke has the votes to block Spanos" - however there are countless articles of the other way. Also, Jason Cole has only reported Spanos having the votes to block him; not the opposite.

Spanos having votes to block Stan is conjecture. 99% of this thread is conjecture and opinion mixed in with a lot of projection and bias.

 

[The Ripper]

There's a difference between "no one having votes" and saying "Kroenke has the votes to block spanos"

One is true, and one is pure conjecture. I don't know if maybe you misheard or something but it has never been reported anywhere that "Kroenke has the votes to block Spanos" - however there are countless articles of the other way. Also, Jason Cole has only reported Spanos having the votes to block him; not the opposite.

The Source is Mark Fabiani the same as it was in January. Multiple reporters reporting the same information from the same source doesn't make it a true statement.

 

[dbrooks25]

We can argue semantics but if my point isn't clear by now, it's not going to be.

I'm not questioning the motives, good will or mechanics of the Rams being out of their long term lease with the CVC.

They are out of the long term lease because the dome failed to meet the top tier requirement. If the dome was still top tier the Rams wouldn't be free agents. Now the city is trying to sign a new long term lease with the Rams with worse terms than the previous lease.

Does this work or do you still have semantic problems with what i'm saying?

Yep I do, specifically the worse terms than the previous lease part, but I digress. My point was that St. Louis didn't "commit" to make the dome top tier, that was totally FALSE. Call it arguing semantics if you want, but facts are facts.

 

[bluecoconuts]

"Inglewood or nothing"



Goodness, friend, please take a look at what's happening. To deny Carson to this degree at this stage is a very cynical point of view.

Big news coming out of Carson June 22 added with the flopping of OAK and SD talks has only upped its potential. This is being conservative.

It's rather baffling you are blue knuckling that opinion with what's been coming out.

Spanos and Davis are paired and neither have expressed interest with Stan or Inglewood. What more do you want, friend? All I know is how bad you want the Rams in LA. Everything else doesn't make as much sense as that.

Dude, did you even read my post? I'm not even going to respond until you actually read it, and then figure out why that entire post was completely unnecessary and completely off the mark.

 

[bluecoconuts]

It's most definitely Inglewood or Carson - not inglewood or nothing. Wow, that's about a narrow of view point as I've seen on here.

You seem to be believe Kroenke can/will do what he want,regardless if the NFL tells him no, will go against the NFL if told no despite rumors and indications otherwise, Inglewood is the cure all plan (Which abandons St.Louis and atleast 1 owner), and trying to pass Carson off as if it's not a viable alternative as fact , despite the fact that the NFL treating it as it's a very realistic possibility.

May as well as talk to a wall at this point

Same thing I said to Mr St Louis.

Please actually read my post, and not just scan through, and pick out a comment without knowing the context. I was not saying that it's Inglewood or nothing. Instead of trying to say I'm a wall, try reading.

 

[dbrooks25]

I am not going through hours of radio interviews. It has been said no one has the votes for relocation.

I've never heard anywhere (not even in this thread) that Stan has the votes to block Spanos, but I have read and heard numerous times that Spanos has the votes to block Stan. Whether that's true or not, who knows?

 

[-X-]

Quick word of advice for everyone involved in this scintillating debate.

Whenever the personal pronoun "you" shows up in a post, you're no longer talking about someone's argument or statement.
Let's stick to nouns (arguments) and leave the personal pronouns out of it, yeah?

Don't even get me started on transitive verbs either.