Alderwoman Megan-Ellyia Green's bill to put St. Louis public assistance toward the new stadium to a public vote has died in committee: Cohn, Ogilvie, & Tyus in favor; Vollmer, Krewson, Davis, Hubbard, & Coatar against.
I know, and I usually hate it, but in this instance it's potentially what's gonna keep my Rammies here. Besides, I could not stand Green and her serpentine doublespeak "The Rams should remain part of St. Louis's heritage for generations to come" "I'm a Rams fan" while crafting a bill which would effectively kill any chance at keeping the Rams in St. Louis.
She and everyone else against the stadium have known the public vote was thrown out by Judge Frawley in early August. It's not by accident that she waited until a couple weeks ago to file her bill.
Mound City wrote:Alderwoman Megan-Ellyia Green's bill to put St. Louis public assistance toward the new stadium to a public vote has died in committee: Cohn, Ogilvie, & Tyus in favor; Vollmer, Krewson, Davis, Hubbard, & Coatar against.
Side question; Someone claimed she showed up at the one open air riverfront hearing a few Saturdays ago in a pretty new BMW M3. Is that true?
Mound City wrote:I know, and I usually hate it, but in this instance it's potentially what's gonna keep my Rammies here. Besides, I could not stand Green and her serpentine doublespeak "The Rams should remain part of St. Louis's heritage for generations to come" "I'm a Rams fan" while crafting a bill which would effectively kill any chance at keeping the Rams in St. Louis.
She and everyone else against the stadium have known the public vote was thrown out by Judge Frawley in early August. It's not by accident that she waited until a couple weeks ago to file her bill.
She reaps what she sows.
So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And everyone making that argument knows damn well that they'd have made the same "it's too late" argument had she filed it the day after the ruling.
Our honorable Mayor essentially did so that day as he rolled over and refused to appeal citing the lack of time.
Green's bill never had a chance, and we all knew it, but she wasn't wrong for filing it because someone needed to stand up to the ugliness of all of this. It's disgusting.
And I also take serious issue with the idea that this bill would have killed the stadium. It would have given St. Louis' proposal a less favorable foundation as the NFL decides things, but it was NOT a deal killer. Oakland and San Diego don't have plans. The NFL likes both LA plans. They have a tough decision to make, and they might not make it at all.
This idea that St. Louis not having 100% funding in place by January means automatic death is hogwash. There were plenty of possible outcomes that would have left time for a public vote. All that's guaranteed now is that the public will never get to decide.
Reports from the NFL Owners' meeting today in Dallas are that the owners are eyeing a vote in Houston on January 12/13. This is 100% consistent with what Peacock has said all along, which is that he has expected a vote in January or February of 2016.
Sorry, but if you're trying to say putting the public funding for the stadium up for a vote in March would do anything but kill the NFL in St. Louis, then I think the word you had in mind was "hogwash"...
My issue with Green is her insistence that this was in the name of democracy and upholding the right of the people to have a say, when if that were truly the case, she could have done this as soon as the public vote was stricken. Instead, she holds herself out as a Rams fan and believing the Rams should remain in St. Louis, while waiting until her bill would all but certainly kill the NFL in St. Louis to file it.
There's no escaping the hypocrisy on full display by her and her supporters.
Again, Oakland has NO plan whatsoever, and San Diego's vote won't be until the middle of 2016 at the earliest. If St. Louis had waited for a March vote, every current city would be in the same exact vote.
So how does it make any sense that the Rams would automatically get the votes to move, but the Chargers and the Raiders wouldn't?
Voting in March would WEAKEN St. Louis' position to the NFL. But kill it? Give me a break.
Stan wanted to leave St. Louis far more than the owners of either the Chargers or the Raiders wanted to leave their respective markets. Stan also had the means to do it by himself, easily. Again, not the case with either the Chargers or Raiders. Finally, the Chargers and Raiders have much more of a "legacy" in their home markets than the Rams do, here. Your problem is that you're assuming the NFL would treat all cities and owners equally, when that's simply not the case.
Mound City wrote:Reports from the NFL Owners' meeting today in Dallas are that the owners are eyeing a vote in Houston on January 12/13. This is 100% consistent with what Peacock has said all along, which is that he has expected a vote in January or February of 2016.
Sorry, but if you're trying to say putting the public funding for the stadium up for a vote in March would do anything but kill the NFL in St. Louis, then I think the word you had in mind was "hogwash"...
My issue with Green is her insistence that this was in the name of democracy and upholding the right of the people to have a say, when if that were truly the case, she could have done this as soon as the public vote was stricken. Instead, she holds herself out as a Rams fan and believing the Rams should remain in St. Louis, while waiting until her bill would all but certainly kill the NFL in St. Louis to file it.
There's no escaping the hypocrisy on full display by her and her supporters.
Bingo. Green does nothing but play both sides of the fence. Loves to cause a stir by proposing bills that she knows will go nowhere. She is worthless and has done nothing serving on the BOA.
Like it or not, I think the NFL has far too much power for us not to try to abide by their timetable, fictitious or otherwise. Frankly, I'm shocked that Peacock and the City have gotten it this far. The NFL has only targeted and highlighted the negative aspects of our plans all along, meaning that we pretty much have to be "perfect" from their perspective. The NFL, Grubman, and certain owners have only pointed out over the last few months that despite "progress" we:
-really have nothing until its final (even though we all know that's garbage compared to SD and OAK)
-didn't turn in the term sheet on time
-messed up the naming rights (c'mon, give us a break, we basically pulled off a naming rights deal without a team)
-need to tighten up and finalize financing
The NFL won't think twice to rip this team away from us because of Stan's money and influence, the history of the Rams in LA, and the siren call of LA profits. I know that there is much disagreement about how we are getting this done and what we are fighting for, but at the end of the day, Peacock was clear all along: get this packaged by January and we have a chance. Don't, and the chances become crippled to impossible. He has given us no reason whatsoever to distrust him to date. I won't start now. My enjoyment of the Rams/NFL continues to outweigh any misgivings I have about the NFL, their tactics, and their influence on regional politics. It is what it is. I pay a plenty of regional taxes including city taxes and I have no issue with what is being planned. If the Rams go, we will survive. But I'd rather they stay and continue to be impressed by Peacock's delivery to date.
Peacock's methods are precisely why I distrust him. So is his general apathy towards things that should matter to the city in favor of an at all costs NFL site plan.
But I'm also well passed hoping we keep the team. I've crossed into "please get this league out of my city" territory.
I've been in the "ditch the NFL" camp for a while now. I really don't see this league or sport having a fun next 20 years. Baseball has a serious chance of re-gaining the top spot over that timespan, IMO.
And also at the Megan Green hate. Hypocrisy? Lol, stadium supporters don't have moral grounds to fling such accusations at damn near anyone. Y'all ditched morals a long time ago.
What morals have proponents ditched. Like Peacock we happen to believe this is the best for St Louis. After Kroenke requested the $700M dome mods, I said the Rams were gone. No way St Louis can stop him. But then when you look at the numbers and rewards of the new stadium, you realize this isn't bad. This can work. This should work. That is not immoral.
I think the NFL will survive. I enjoy the planning, deception, athleticism. Not the hitting or injuries. The game needs major changes to stop injuries. Maybe only the ball carrier should be tackled. But even if they go all the way to flag football, I think the game can survive.
My final predication. Which has been for a long time if we go back many pages. Rams and chargers in LA and a pay off for raiders. Despite reports that it's not happening I think both will realize only way they get to LA is together since each will have enough votes to block the others plans
^^Db, considering the ice cold relationship between Spanos and Kroenke, the past double-crossing and the general dislike reported between many long -time owners and StanK, It would take a monumental effort from Kroenke, to get Spanos on-board with him. Kroenke would likely have to give up 50% of most, if not all revenues. They would have to be 50-50 partners. I see Stan's greed and ego getting in the way of that. I think Stan was really backed into a corner by the Carson team bringing on Bob Iger. He is very connected and is owed many a favor from the NFL. Not to mention, Spanos and reiterated his commitment to Carson and partnering with his new BFF Mark Davis. Spanos has claimed to have become very close friends with Davis throughout this process. I don't see a scenario where he dumps Davis for his bitter enemy Kroenke.
Obviously, I am trusting the reports I've heard on this situation, but several different local and national media have claimed all of this to be true. If so, I find it hard to imagine, Spanos joining StanK. Money talks and that could change everything if Stan gives up the farm to get to LA, but again, his ego may not allow that.
When the owners meet in a dark room sometimes in the next few weeks with no announced meeting...and they tell Stan and Dean; neither will get votes to LA as it stands....your only option is to figure out a deal together and figure it out quick.
Spanos cant go back to SD. He knows that, they have burned the hell out of those bridges...If SD knows he also cant go to LA what motivation will they have to hand him over $500M and a site he wants? he wants downtown, the hotel owners want a new convention center at the site..hotel owners apparently hold a lot of sway over the current mayor
Stan has options here clearly, but he doesn't want them, clearly.
Mark Davis is the annoying tag along friend- he will get $ or be forced in Levi stadium .
How about letting Stan build his palace, but then have him host the Chargers & Raiders. He only cares about the business deal, after all, not football. He could stay in St Louis and continue to play in the dome if he likes and remain just as silent and invisible as he is now.
So I've never really doubted that he cares about St. Louis. I'm just not convinced he "gets" it.
He certainly thinks he does. But at the end of the day, I think he likes football and likes rooting for his team, so he'll view things through a positive lens if that's what's getting done.
Don't get me wrong. It's clear from that post that he wants this to be something that's positive for St. Louis. I just don't think it's there.
(And then you factor in my complete disregard for the lethal sport of football and the business organizations that run it, and I think it's an even worse thing for us to invest in.)
Believe Spanos has gone own down the Carson City road with Raiders and now the Executive from Disney that just makes the most sense for his franchise and the NFL. Raiders have already let it be known they are willing give some ownership for new stadium which I don't believe is condition on being in Oakland or LA. In some ways, I'm starting to wonder if Davis family is putting together an exit strategy. Sell part to get into LA, once there sell out on a team valuation which will most likely be much better because they are splitting a bigger pie with Spanos instead of a shrinking pie in Bay Area.
Simply put, I think Carson City is coming together in a way that Stan K didn't think had a chance at all have happening. San Diego and Oakland efforts to put together viable stadium plans is only making Carson a better option for both those teams. In addition, Carson City gives NFL Studios big time opportunity to build new studios and having an entertainment executive leading the development is a good move.
I'm going with Moorlander's prediction simply by the fact that NFL won't place three teams in the LA area and Stan K loses out by not having a Spanos in his pocket in the first place. I think will be the big blunder on his part.
at the Megan Green hate. Hypocrisy? Lol, stadium supporters don't have moral grounds to fling such accusations at damn near anyone. Y'all ditched morals a long time ago.
