I don't think Davis is well liked, and I think Spanos is liked for more than just stadium issues. That's just my perception. The guy's been around, had to have made a friend or two.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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
I don't think Davis is well liked, and I think Spanos is liked for more than just stadium issues. That's just my perception. The guy's been around, had to have made a friend or two.
So Alex Spanos (who bought 60% of the Chargers in 1984 and bought the others out by 1994) gave the keys to his son Dean in 1994. That is plenty of time to build bonds within the league. Now ESK has been in the picture about the same amount of time although as second fiddle to GF. Perhaps it was his association with her that has the league soured on him. As I recall he helped facilitate a move out of LA which was not favored by the league owners.
Interesting that Dean Spanos is now turning over the football operations to his kids like his dad did 20 years ago.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/18/chargers-dean-spanos-ag-john-control/
Interesting that Dean Spanos is now turning over the football operations to his kids like his dad did 20 years ago.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/18/chargers-dean-spanos-ag-john-control/
The problem comes in that most "temporary taxes" or levies have a sunset - or ending date - that the voters actually vote on. My understanding is that the bond levy for the dome was supposed to end in 2021 - is that correct? If so and there is wording to the effect either in the ballot wording when it was passed or in the implementation wording that this could be the Governor's biggest hurdle. The reason being is that most rulings have been that the voters should expect to know precisely what they are voting on (even though most don't actually pay any attention). That is why many ballot initiatives are thrown out after they are passed if they somehow might affect more than one rule/law/statute. The courts often rule that the voters did not have a clear idea that they were voting on the additional affects. They would only reasonably know that they were voting for the main item in the title.
Others want to suggest it is the "adjacent" wording. Not sure. I've seen many projects considered "adjacent" simply by being in the same township or zone. Seems to be a stretch but they make it work if the city wants it. How close is the riverfront site to the Dome? Seems that it is practically just across the freeway and certainly in the same basic zone of the city. I suppose the locals might have more input on this thought.
The interesting thing is that I think the lawsuit to overturn the city ordinance has a good chance of winning. It does seem to be ambiguous and broad. Even though I think circumventing what you absolutely know the voters approved because a lawsuit says you don't have to is a crappy thing to do to the voters, it may very well happen that way. The mayor knows what the voters wanted when that was passed. But he could get the green light, not because the voters didn't actually know what they were voting on, but because a judge might rule that the ordinance affected multiple subjects.
Either way, I think in this case, the known will of the voters will be subverted and the unknown will of the voters will never be tested. It just smacks as disenfranchising the voters and not just a shortcut to get to the inevitable.
Sugar coat? Not sure. But he has a job to do. And that job is to present the Riverfront Stadium in a light that makes it a slam dunk as much as possible. His main goal is to make sure the project looks like the most sure thing available because that may indeed be his only real power in these negotiations. I think he is doing a great job. But I wouldn't expect him to put out anything that says, "OK - That could put a serious road block in our way". Instead, he knows his only response can be that it will be handled.
Yea, I guess so. I don't agree with how you've worded it here with Peacock saying it was a "real possibility". He said that in the end SK might not be the owner. It's semantics, but it does matter.
I would agree with you if I had an example of a time he has done that. But like I said before, he's been pretty damn transparent about the whole process so far.
Personally - I think Dean is liked for most things besides the stadium issue. He has been a pretty consummate soldier for the NFL owners on most issues but I'm not sure many of them agree that he couldn't have a deal in place in SD by now if he would have been a wee bit more accommodating and willing to put up some cash.
I don't think he has exactly lied about anything but he definitely has spoken from the task force party line - as well he should.
With him saying it twice in slightly different words, may not have helped either. One of the times he brought it up sounded pretty spiteful actually. I'm not saying he should always be Mr. Nice Guy either but those might not have been some of his smartest moves.
bluecoconuts
Legend
That and if he truly wanted LA he had many a year to get it done. Almost like a little kid who doesn't want his toy until he see's someone else with it. I'm sure the owners see things their own way, but Spanos always had different options he chose not to use.
The Ripper
Starter
The reason must public initiatives get overturned is that they involve social issues that prevent something. Judges tend to give some latitude to public initiatives when it comes to taxes and voting. The city ordinance may be overly broad but it does not prevent using tax dollars for a stadium it just says that it must be put to a vote. The argument that there just isn't enough time for a vote because of the arbitrary deadline that the NFL imposed just doesn't hold water since a vote could have been held before the end of the year.
The other lawsuit may have merit but the issue that remains even if that suit is unsuccessful is that extending bonds isn't that easy. It is very rare for a municipal bond to a have a provision to extend the bonds past the maturity date and if it did that would be extremely expensive for the issuer. The more likely situation is that the will have a new bond issue but then there could be more challenges which would also increase the cost. Nixon has been using Goldman as an adviser which would prohibit them from underwriting the bonds. Goldman just got fined for doing that so they would need to use another underwriter for the bonds which might be difficult with the court challenges and potential blocking of funding from the legislature.
It would be considered adjacent the new dome site is less than 5 miles from the old dome. Another reason why I think Peacock and Co win this is because the Dome will still be in use generating more money for the city and the money will still be used to help cover cost and improvements for the ejd. If it does go to a vote I truly believe the people of Stlouis city will vote in support of the stadium. I think that's one possible reason why the county is no longer a part of the puzzle because it would be much harder for this to pass if we needed county approval too
The Ripper
Starter
I like Peacock, he has had some gaffs with his one liners but that's just sales and he's doing a great job with his pitch. One of the big problems was with Blitz and that he chose to attack the Bidwell's in the initial press conference. There should have been no mention of anything dealing with the Cardinals. It brings up some bad issues for St Louis and support of football which the NFL used against the Rams when the team was initially rejected for relocation. Plus insulting an owner who has been part of the NFL for 52 years is just not a good way to get sympathy from the other owners.
The Ripper
Starter
I agree with the adjacent since they can build a walkway or an underground complex connecting the facilities similar to what they have in Toronto and Montreal. I think the main problem will be, did a law from 1988 allow a stadium to built in-perpetuity or just once.
ramfaninsd
UDFA
i am in san diego and all through the years i can honestly say i have not seen the chargers work with san diego to get a new stadium. they hired fabiani to deal with this issue and imho he has not helped one iota.
The Rams have been pretty clear that they're going to explore their options regardless of who gets stepped on, so I still don't see why Peacock essentially doing the same thing is such a big deal. I know I've said this before, but I think these types of things are going to be irrelevant. If the financing for everything lines up, it will be the project that serves the most markets that wins. I know probably no one will be happy with this initially, but taking the long-term is smart for the NFL. It's why I'm not as quick to dismiss the Raiders in St Louis as some because, like it or not for the people here, it does neatly solve a problem. As in not losing a market.
The Ripper
Starter
He may be liked among the owners but prior to this relocation issue there haven't been too many good things to say about the Chargers organization and it was more than AJ Smith & John Butler.
bluecoconuts
Legend
That's kind of the way I'm at too. Honestly I don't know if the stadium gets built unless it's for the Raiders. If it's the Rams I think it's a totally different project (of course it's probably grander if Kroenke throws more money behind it)... However if he stays in St Louis, what's the rush? That's why when people talk about constructing starting this year, I don't really see it. Unless they're going to make it a crazy owner friendly deal, I think he takes a page from the Chargers playbook and just goes year to year until there's an offer that blows him away. The problem is, as we can see with the Chargers and San Diego, it's not a permanent solution.
If Kroenke agrees to take the Riverfront stadium if they keep him from LA then that's a different story of course, but I'm assuming if he wants LA that badly he says he's not going to be leaving his St Louis lease anytime soon, and suddenly there's a problem for the NFL.
Goodell better study up on the Kobayashi Maru because he's about to find himself in one.
Not sure how it works in MO but I can speak to Oregon and I believe it holds true in most states. Judges rarely rule on initiatives based on the subject - social or otherwise. What they do is rule on the legal structure of the initiative itself. And generally that centers around what the voter supposedly knows they voted for.
I was involved in several initiative campaigns spanning over about 5 years. While the courts have ruled certain provisions are unconstitutional (State or Fed) those kinds of issues are generally vetted out by the State AG's office before the initiatives get their official ballot title and summary and after signatures are certified. In the case of a city gov't or state assembly proposing an initiative or measure, they don't need to go through the signature gathering process.
The rest I'd assume is pretty accurate but don't know.
I think you're probably right with the exception of one thing. I don't think the courts will or even can consider the use of the Dome as it is a completely separate issue. Courts can sometimes step outside of the issues raised in a lawsuit but that one would be a pretty big stretch IMO.
- Status