New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Sum1]

I assume you are talking about the rumored cancelled events and such that Demoff addressed as being untrue?


This was what I was really having a hard time swallowing. Is this really their legal answer to the suit brought by the Senators? Can anyone explain - and not from a fan perspective - how this is a defensible position? With Goodell speaking about how it is rare to have a Governor so deeply involved in the process and Peacock/Blitz uniformly known as being appointed by the Governor, etc... How exactly is he on the sidelines?


This is something I have brought up several times. I urge anyone wanting to cite Ganis as an expert on anything to find out what he specifically does, what is his background, or why anyone should consider anything that he says. Seriously. The dude is mentioned as some sort of authority and I can guarantee you that no one knows what he has done except that is name is on a report just prior to being fired for lying about his credentials. The dude is a fraud.

Come on man. You answered BCs point about SD suing to have Fabiani removed with the contention that St Louis has done the same thing and then produced this as evidence. It's ok to say oops.


And here I was expecting her to say, "Well we really wanted Baltimore but couldn't get a deal worked out that would keep up my showgirl lifestyle. Instead, we settled for St Louis because they were willing to sign this absolutely ridiculous lease that guaranteed me huge jack." My bad.


OK - consider me confused by this.


Actually - he did.

LOL. At least you are buying that PR spin.

 

[RamFan503]

LOL. At least you are buying that PR spin.

You're in the Biz - what did they eliminate? And you are right. I am buying that spin because no one refuted it after he said it. But as always, I would gladly defer to someone who knows. Not saying I won't investigate but I'd rather hear from you or anyone with first hand experience if you have anything.

 

[Sum1]

You're in the Biz - what did they eliminate? And you are right. I am buying that spin because no one refuted it after he said it. But as always, I would gladly defer to someone who knows. Not saying I won't investigate but I'd rather hear from you or anyone with first hand experience if you have anything.

They eliminated an event and basically claimed they didn't by stating they are "moving it" to create a different experience.

In reality they eliminated a popular well-known event and added a practice in its place. They shortened training camp in St.Louis but added practices in LA, but we are to believe this is just coincidence. They are very much alienating the fanbase while trying to give the perception that they aren't to the outsiders. It is clearly working.

 

[Rmfnlt]

It is clearly working.

Depends on where you sit...

 

[blue4]

And here I was expecting her to say, "Well we really wanted Baltimore but couldn't get a deal worked out that would keep up my showgirl lifestyle. Instead, we settled for St Louis because they were willing to sign this absolutely ridiculous lease that guaranteed me huge jack." My bad.

And here I was expecting her to say, "I'd love to go to my hometown but I need to make sure the deal is right. Let's waste some time." My bad.

 

[RamFan503]

And here I was expecting her to say, "I'd love to go to my hometown but I need to make sure the deal is right. Let's waste some time." My bad.

I know. Right?

 

[RamFan503]

They eliminated an event and basically claimed they didn't by stating they are "moving it" to create a different experience.

In reality they eliminated a popular well-known event and added a practice in its place. They shortened training camp in St.Louis but added practices in LA, but we are to believe this is just coincidence. They are very much alienating the fanbase while trying to give the perception that they aren't to the outsiders. It is clearly working.

It would appear you are right. And I call BS over budgetary reasons. Good line to carry to the owners though - "we way overspent last year." Even if true, did they not have a budget for the event and know how much they could spend?

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...Fan-Fest-Not-Related-to-Uncertain-Future.aspx
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/19/8070203/st-louis-rams-fan-fest-canceled

 

[drasconis]

I assume you are talking about the rumored cancelled events and such that Demoff addressed as being untrue?

This was what I was really having a hard time swallowing. Is this really their legal answer to the suit brought by the Senators? Can anyone explain - and not from a fan perspective - how this is a defensible position? With Goodell speaking about how it is rare to have a Governor so deeply involved in the process and Peacock/Blitz uniformly known as being appointed by the Governor, etc... How exactly is he on the sidelines?
.

The gov. office has certain leeway in supporting projects (note this would be in general not specific to MO) to form committees and investigate possibilities. Sort of along the running joke that when something major happens the first thing you here is "I am forming a committee/council/panel"). So most of what was done with Peacock/Blitz would fall under that. I really see no challenge there, the court isn't going to paralyze the entire system by saying a governor has to get everything approved by the congress....there have to be a number of generic line item spending allocations that the governor can spend as he sees fit (now these would have limits in spending and power). The issue of what he is doing with the bonds is a separate issue completely. With this I am a bit more iffy on its legality (and I have NOT read the law to try to interpret it!). The fact is that a Republican led Congress did not block the move , though they could, second if they thought it was far enough outside his power they could impeach (crazy I realize). I have NOT read the briefs or the laws involved...but I can tell you that on the face I would assume the court will frown on the case - it looks like a few law makers are sour that congress did not act and thus are trying to go around them...generally the court would see this as them bypassing congress and interfering with standard process and would not want to set precedent of being drug into every case were someone did not get their bill passed or the senate or house did not act. That said NEVER say a court will rule 100% on any matter, simply say it is likely....

 

[RamFan503]

The gov. office has certain leeway in supporting projects (note this would be in general not specific to MO) to form committees and investigate possibilities. Sort of along the running joke that when something major happens the first thing you here is "I am forming a committee/council/panel"). So most of what was done with Peacock/Blitz would fall under that. I really see no challenge there, the court isn't going to paralyze the entire system by saying a governor has to get everything approved by the congress....there have to be a number of generic line item spending allocations that the governor can spend as he sees fit (now these would have limits in spending and power). The issue of what he is doing with the bonds is a separate issue completely. With this I am a bit more iffy on its legality (and I have NOT read the law to try to interpret it!). The fact is that a Republican led Congress did not block the move , though they could, second if they thought it was far enough outside his power they could impeach (crazy I realize). I have NOT read the briefs or the laws involved...but I can tell you that on the face I would assume the court will frown on the case - it looks like a few law makers are sour that congress did not act and thus are trying to go around them...generally the court would see this as them bypassing congress and interfering with standard process and would not want to set precedent of being drug into every case were someone did not get their bill passed or the senate or house did not act. That said NEVER say a court will rule 100% on any matter, simply say it is likely....

I agree with you on some of this and they're all good points. But who paid for the plans? Who negotiated with power and light? How is the extending of the bonds a separate issue? The judge in the city case made a statement in the form of a question something to the effect that, "wouldn't sending an ambulance to the dome be considered use of public funds?" So now all that Peacock/Blitz are doing after being appointed by the governor is just the governor being a bystander and using the bully pulpit?

The Republican led majority did try to block it but I believe it was the budget director threatened to not pass the entire budget with the wording they wanted in it, so they backed off. The bill they were proposing would have been iffy and too late (where have I heard that before) as far as over-riding the sure veto. And this is even though the bill had a vast majority in the state house (I believe it was) from both sides of the aisle. I would think the judge would consider that if the thought is that it should be thrown out because they had other alternatives.

Maybe you're right and a judge won't see Nixon's involvement as anything beyond normal governor duties but....

What you are saying isn't a huge stretch by any means and a court could very well rule that way. I just agree with those who view the contention as ludicrous. Everyone knows the governor has been spear heading the project. He has flown out to NY to personally meet with Goodell on it. The project has racked up $3 million (at least) in expenditures and no one but the governor - to my knowledge - would be extending the bonds.

It will be interesting how it all shakes out. It wouldn't be the first time I've been blown away at the latitude government officials receive from the courts. But the idea that the governor is a bystander in all this just makes you go

 

[Legatron4]

Congrats on page 500 boys. Here's to 500 more meaningless, heartbreaking, aggravating pages. HERE HERE!

 

[Goose]

If I were a betting man I'd bet this doesn't amount to anything of significance.

 

[snackdaddy]

Congrats on page 500 boys. Here's to 500 more meaningless, heartbreaking, aggravating pages. HERE HERE!

Meaningless is right. None of the debates here have any influence on what's gonna happen. Whatever happens, its out of our hands.

 

[The Ripper]

If I were a betting man I'd bet this doesn't amount to anything of significance.

Desperation. It's too late in the process to go back to AEG.

 

[MrMotes]

Desperation. It's too late in the process to go back to AEG.

Probably has something to do with the StubHub Center...

 

[RamFan503]

Meaningless is right. None of the debates here have any influence on what's gonna happen. Whatever happens, its out of our hands.

Lies. All LIES! Huh Stan.

 

[RamFan503]

Probably has something to do with the StubHub Center...

Good point.

 

[ChrisW]

If I were a betting man I'd bet this doesn't amount to anything of significance.

Tune in to hear nothing.

 

[brokeu91]

I just wanted to say that I predicted that this thread would go to at least 1000 pages and we're halfway there. Keep it up guys!

Also, I can't wait for this saga to be over

 

[blue4]

500 pages.

 

[RamFan503]

Coming up on 10,000 posts too.