- Strained government and household budgets
- Increased attention on social issues
- Sporting events not allowing fans
- Surprisingly quick opportunism by MLS and the STL ownership group
Yes it is.dredger wrote: ↑Aug 11, 2020Is it time to change the name of this thread that is along the lines of City vs Rams Lawsuit.
- 2,929
KSDK: Judge approves depositions in Rams vs. St. Louis court case
That means all 32 NFL owners, Stan Kroenke, Rams Chief Operating Office Kevin Demoff and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will have to answer some questions about the exact nature of the Rams leaving town....
If St. Louis could prove "unjust enrichment" against the Rams and the NFL, they could come away with more than $2 billion. That's the difference between the Rams' value now, and the Rams' value in 2015 in St. Louis.
- 991
Interesting that Tishaura Jones wants to avoid being depositioned. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cri ... 77930.html
- 2,419
That honestly sounds shady to me.
If she knows nothing, it would be a short deposition.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
If she knows nothing, it would be a short deposition.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
- 3,762
this should be good for her mayoral campaign.Laife Fulk wrote: ↑Feb 02, 2021Interesting that Tishaura Jones wants to avoid being depositioned. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cri ... 77930.html
- 6,123
^Is anyone here a lawyer? Is it possible the defense subpoena is a kind of nuisance filing to slow the process down and discourage city officials from supporting it? I might try to ask a layer friend if he has the time for it, but . . . I don't want to be a nuisance. 
(Will try to remember to ask anyway, though. Just because.)
(Will try to remember to ask anyway, though. Just because.)- 9,566
Its a fishing expo by the Rams side, they want a City Gov witness that was opposed to the funding to show that here couldnt have been a deal hereKansasCitian wrote: ↑Feb 03, 2021That honestly sounds shady to me.
If she knows nothing, it would be a short deposition.
Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
- 2,929
^ Agree 100% with DB's take on it. IANAL, but I did go to law school, FWIW. If I was on the Defense here, I'd want to obfuscate everything possible. They're fishing because they're in a jam and throwing everything against the wall to see if anything sticks. So far, looks like nothing's sticking...
Upcoming events:
2/11: Counsel Status Hearing
9/24: Pre-Trial Conference
10/25: Jury Trial
Upcoming events:
2/11: Counsel Status Hearing
9/24: Pre-Trial Conference
10/25: Jury Trial
NFL attorneys clearly hope Jones will say something to the effect that the city could not afford the new riverfront stadium proposal that she voted against. That may not be directly relevant to the lawsuit, but they will use it to say that city officials were not negotiating in good faith.
I guess the question is: what exactly did Jones say on the record during that vote several years ago...?
I guess the question is: what exactly did Jones say on the record during that vote several years ago...?
- 9,566
urbanitas wrote: ↑Feb 05, 2021I guess the question is: what exactly did Jones say on the record during that vote several years ago...?
^That's the kind of talk I want to see from a St. Louis mayor. Good for her.
- 2,929
^^Those statements, however, did not stop the City, RSA, etc. from approving construction of a new riverfront stadium. The wisdom of publicly constructed stadiums is not at issue here - because legislation to fund it was actually approved.
This is really exciting stuff regarding this lawsuit! It looks like the Defense is reaching for straws by questioning the good faith offer STL put up to retain the team, which they are attempting to sway some doubt upon. However, they absolutely cannot overcome the fact that its construction and public sector funding was approved. If this is how they plan to argue this case, then we have considerable reasons to be confident.
This is really exciting stuff regarding this lawsuit! It looks like the Defense is reaching for straws by questioning the good faith offer STL put up to retain the team, which they are attempting to sway some doubt upon. However, they absolutely cannot overcome the fact that its construction and public sector funding was approved. If this is how they plan to argue this case, then we have considerable reasons to be confident.
off topic but ESPN was airing their 30on30 episode about Al Davis, former Raider's owner (son owns now) vs. NFL lawsuits to keep them in Oakland as well as his relationship with form NFL commissioner as related to Raider's first move to LA years back and subsequent fallout & other team moves. Think Al was Trump before their was a Trump. His arrogance was something else and he had no qualms about keeping a $10 million non refundable check from the city of Irwindale, CA after making the move south and then getting into a pissing contest with LA over Collesium upgrades/major renovation.
- 2,929
^ Never forget that the NFL Owners denied the attempted acquisition of the Buffalo Bills by Donald Trump because they didn't want him to be a fellow team owner. They saw him as full of drama & bullcrap, and not necessarily business acumen, that collectively would have brought down the League's valuation. Plus, the majority of owners also thought he was an ass and didn't want to have to endure him at League owner meetings.
Meanwhile, Kroenke is just a quiet dude who only spoke up to relocate. He promised either piles of new money by returning a team to the LA metro area, or lawsuits if the other owners disagreed with his plans. Very much reminds me of the old Spanish Colombian policy of "Plata o Plomo": the silver of a payoff, or the lead of a bullet.
Meanwhile, Kroenke is just a quiet dude who only spoke up to relocate. He promised either piles of new money by returning a team to the LA metro area, or lawsuits if the other owners disagreed with his plans. Very much reminds me of the old Spanish Colombian policy of "Plata o Plomo": the silver of a payoff, or the lead of a bullet.
^ It was interesting. In some respects you can see the legitimate arguments from Al Davis that the NFL needed to make some big changes in its product and venues. What followed was a definite up swing and windfall for the league owners as a whole. Whether you give Al all the credit of not it was certainly done on the back of taxpayers & the cities/regions that bought into subsidizing new stadiums.
I think that pendulum has swung somewhat with Kroenke taking on much more risk in his new LA stadium, new stadiums being tied to real estate developments (think BPV) and at the day for the better in that St. Louis didn't go down the path of giving him a new stadium. Taylor family getting some perks out of there MLS stadium deal but you can argue that the subsidies and incentives would probably be much larger 10 years ago.
The question now, will the pendulum have swung wide enough that a team that moves and its associated league will also be held accountable on long term debts incurred on the teams behalf such as the CVC dome upgrades/bonds. I still think an agreement and or court ruling in St. Louis favor will still be relative and limited to what remaining debts from stadium build out and upgrades & maybe, maybe some equivalent compensation on loss tax revenues per ticket sales. I doubt it will be windfall for the city.
I think that pendulum has swung somewhat with Kroenke taking on much more risk in his new LA stadium, new stadiums being tied to real estate developments (think BPV) and at the day for the better in that St. Louis didn't go down the path of giving him a new stadium. Taylor family getting some perks out of there MLS stadium deal but you can argue that the subsidies and incentives would probably be much larger 10 years ago.
The question now, will the pendulum have swung wide enough that a team that moves and its associated league will also be held accountable on long term debts incurred on the teams behalf such as the CVC dome upgrades/bonds. I still think an agreement and or court ruling in St. Louis favor will still be relative and limited to what remaining debts from stadium build out and upgrades & maybe, maybe some equivalent compensation on loss tax revenues per ticket sales. I doubt it will be windfall for the city.
- 3,762
^ it's amazing how many of the commentors don't understand the concept of a legally-binding contract. i especially liked (paraphrasing) "if St. Louis can sue for the Rams moving back to LA then LA should sue for the Rams moving to St. Louis!" and several of the commentors seem to think that every team move justifies litigation/compensation (see the numerous Cleveland references). the stupidity of the average American is bewildering.
^ I also took a glance at those and finally had to just close it out. Not that PFT readers (or to be fair, commenters) are known for their intelligence...
Same type of people who didn’t understand the basic concept behind ‘airport privatization.’
- 3,762
^ wow, what a random non sequitur. congrats on being super confident in whatever your opinion happens to be regarding airport privatization, though. good for you.
I’ll agree with u_d on that one...but I’ll bite. I didn’t support airport privatization...nor do I support any sort of privatization of public infrastructure (look at the clusterf*ck that just happened in Texas).
But that doesn’t mean I don’t understand it...I understand it quite well actually. What I don’t understand is why St. Louis leaders (and apparently some residents like yourself) were ok with the back room dealing and lack of public participation in selling off the city’s largest asset. Or Lewis Reed writing a $40 million+ payoff into his failed legislation for King Rex.
The stupidity of the average St. Louisan is bewildering.
I was pointing out the similarities of comment sections from ProFootballTalk regarding the lawsuit and STLtoday regarding privatization. People are making uninformed comments based on what they think, feel or believe it to be. (And they weren’t ‘selling the airport.’) The shady, backroom stuff is a whole separate kettle of fish.
(Sorry folks, didn’t want to derail this.)
(Sorry folks, didn’t want to derail this.)