^^So what you're saying was that the Cardinals themselves were the first event in the NFL screwing our fair city. That I did not know.
Yup. Successfully blocked an AFL team owned by actual St. Louisans.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Oct 20, 2021^^So what you're saying was that the Cardinals themselves were the first event in the NFL screwing our fair city. That I did not know.
^^^^Thats fascinating, Dweebe. I appreciate the info and made myself a reminder to see if I can find more out about the history and details.
And more importantly, even if the Busch family had passed on football, don't forget that St. Louis was a top ten metro area and media market through at least 1970. There is no way it would have remained empty for long with both the AFL and NFL expanding.dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 19, 2021Part of the reason the football Cardinals had a rough run was they were never welcome in St. Louis.OnTheEdge wrote: ↑Oct 18, 2021I don't know the history of the Cardinals coming to STL 61 years ago or what STL's options were at the time. Not sure how you can be so certain that some other option would've resulted in a different outcome tho. I seriously doubt anyone at the time new with any degree of certainty the NFL would become the entertainment behemoth it grew into decades later.
In the late 1950's and 1960 the NFL Chicago Cardinals were circling the drain financially. Things were so bad they were close to bankruptcy and possible contraction. At the same time the AFL was spinning up and Ortwein side of the Busch family was looking to place an expansion team here in St. Louis. To block that possibility the NFL moved the Cardinals to St. Louis. From that point on Auggie Busch, the rest of the family and their allies treated the Bidwills pretty poorly. That's why the city vs county fight ensued and some of the big corporations/old school St. Louis power brokers didn't get involved or aligned with the Busch clan. The Cardinals slumped off to Arizona to play in a college football stadium for another 15 years.
I have almost no doubt that if St. Louis had gotten a Busch family owned AFL team in 1961 or 1962, they would still be here today.
Of course there's no guarantee it would have been a legendary football team, but it'd be hard to match the epic and dismal futility of the Cardinals, with an owner who only had a job because he inherited a football team from his mommy and daddy.
But, funny enough, look who's the only undefeated team in the league this season.
I agree, there is civic pride to be found in sports teams. But not from a league that is pretty, well, unsavory. A sad track record that gets conveniently overlooked to appease the bored masses. I think football is/was great for Downtown. It was fun watching the XFL tailgates for the short time it was renewed here in STL. I just do not appreciate the NFL as an organization, nor would I appreciate a reconciliatory 'We ***** up, sorry guys, now please shut up and get us more money again' franchise. They're a bunch of rich pricks, and they don't deserve the supportive dollars of St. Louisans. Again, just my opinion, and we can argue about this back and forth til we both are gray in the beard.gone corporate wrote: ↑Oct 19, 2021^Got to disagree with you there. Civic pride can come from the sports team with your City's name on it, as well as avenging those who wronged your City.
I can truly understand the desire that so many have for a new team. I want football back. Very, very much. I was a fan of the game, and of the Rams, and I'd like to be a fan of pro football again (more than just the Battlehawks). I attended our last game, that Thursday night game where they were dressed up in those stupid all-yellow uniforms. I cheered my head off and stayed afterwards to keep cheering while ESPN was broadcasting, so the audience would know STL fans are high quality NFL fans. We were loud. Arnold Donald cheered us back. I'd like times like that back.
As well, I absolutely want to stick it to those who wronged us. A favorable verdict, plus billions of dollars, would certainly help assuage my anger. (Personally, I'd like StanK, Goodell, and the rest of those bastards put in prisoner stockades in Kiener Plaza and held there for at least a week on top of taking their excess ill-gotten returns, but I digress...)
I want both football and vengeance against StanK, the NFL, et.al. I bet most people do. Same time, that poll didn't ask if people wanted both options, but to pick what they want more: Football, or Vengeance.
Let's consider how many, many people see our choices here:
A. Football.B. Vengeance.
- We get a pro team back and return to the status quo, likely better than it was before.
- Fun returns, which is wonderful.
So, yeah, let's not say people who'd be happy with a football team back in STL don't have civic pride. They're just not swimming in this issue like we are. Just a thought.
- We get the opportunity to win a verdict.
- Assuming we win: Subsequently, there's a decade of appeals.
- We eventually see billions go to trial lawyers.
- Down the line, we see that the politicians have the chance to spend these billions on their pet projects.
- The City does see multiple capital allocations to high-priority projects. This is not as enjoyable as going to a football game, and not as easy to conceptualize in an online poll.
Look at the teams added during what could be called the NFL's middle era:urbanitas wrote: ↑Oct 20, 2021And more importantly, even if the Busch family had passed on football, don't forget that St. Louis was a top ten metro area and media market through at least 1970. There is no way it would have remained empty for long with both the AFL and NFL expanding.dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 19, 2021Part of the reason the football Cardinals had a rough run was they were never welcome in St. Louis.OnTheEdge wrote: ↑Oct 18, 2021I don't know the history of the Cardinals coming to STL 61 years ago or what STL's options were at the time. Not sure how you can be so certain that some other option would've resulted in a different outcome tho. I seriously doubt anyone at the time new with any degree of certainty the NFL would become the entertainment behemoth it grew into decades later.
In the late 1950's and 1960 the NFL Chicago Cardinals were circling the drain financially. Things were so bad they were close to bankruptcy and possible contraction. At the same time the AFL was spinning up and Ortwein side of the Busch family was looking to place an expansion team here in St. Louis. To block that possibility the NFL moved the Cardinals to St. Louis. From that point on Auggie Busch, the rest of the family and their allies treated the Bidwills pretty poorly. That's why the city vs county fight ensued and some of the big corporations/old school St. Louis power brokers didn't get involved or aligned with the Busch clan. The Cardinals slumped off to Arizona to play in a college football stadium for another 15 years.
I have almost no doubt that if St. Louis had gotten a Busch family owned AFL team in 1961 or 1962, they would still be here today.
Of course there's no guarantee it would have been a legendary football team, but it'd be hard to match the epic and dismal futility of the Cardinals, with an owner who only had a job because he inherited a football team from his mommy and daddy.
Atlanta Falcons
Miami Dolphins
New Orleans Saints
Cincinnati Bengals
Seattle Seahawks
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
I don't have any doubt we wouldn't have been included in that list if the Chicago Cardinals had folded/stayed in Chicago.
Bidwill was also an unlikable person. Don't underestimate that part of it, too.dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 19, 2021Part of the reason the football Cardinals had a rough run was they were never welcome in St. Louis.OnTheEdge wrote: ↑Oct 18, 2021I don't know the history of the Cardinals coming to STL 61 years ago or what STL's options were at the time. Not sure how you can be so certain that some other option would've resulted in a different outcome tho. I seriously doubt anyone at the time new with any degree of certainty the NFL would become the entertainment behemoth it grew into decades later.
In the late 1950's and 1960 the NFL Chicago Cardinals were circling the drain financially. Things were so bad they were close to bankruptcy and possible contraction. At the same time the AFL was spinning up and Ortwein side of the Busch family was looking to place an expansion team here in St. Louis. To block that possibility the NFL moved the Cardinals to St. Louis. From that point on Auggie Busch, the rest of the family and their allies treated the Bidwills pretty poorly. That's why the city vs county fight ensued and some of the big corporations/old school St. Louis power brokers didn't get involved or aligned with the Busch clan. The Cardinals slumped off to Arizona to play in a college football stadium for another 15 years.
I have almost no doubt that if St. Louis had gotten a Busch family owned AFL team in 1961 or 1962, they would still be here today.
I think unlikable is an unfair term. There are a lot of other ways to describe Bill Bidwill like "in over his head" "odd bird" and "should not have been in charge".jeff707 wrote: ↑Oct 20, 2021Bidwill was also an unlikable person. Don't underestimate that part of it, too.dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 19, 2021Part of the reason the football Cardinals had a rough run was they were never welcome in St. Louis.OnTheEdge wrote: ↑Oct 18, 2021I don't know the history of the Cardinals coming to STL 61 years ago or what STL's options were at the time. Not sure how you can be so certain that some other option would've resulted in a different outcome tho. I seriously doubt anyone at the time new with any degree of certainty the NFL would become the entertainment behemoth it grew into decades later.
In the late 1950's and 1960 the NFL Chicago Cardinals were circling the drain financially. Things were so bad they were close to bankruptcy and possible contraction. At the same time the AFL was spinning up and Ortwein side of the Busch family was looking to place an expansion team here in St. Louis. To block that possibility the NFL moved the Cardinals to St. Louis. From that point on Auggie Busch, the rest of the family and their allies treated the Bidwills pretty poorly. That's why the city vs county fight ensued and some of the big corporations/old school St. Louis power brokers didn't get involved or aligned with the Busch clan. The Cardinals slumped off to Arizona to play in a college football stadium for another 15 years.
I have almost no doubt that if St. Louis had gotten a Busch family owned AFL team in 1961 or 1962, they would still be here today.
I knew someone that worked for Bidwill at his Teams, Togs and Tickets store at Chesterfield Mall in the early-mid 1980's. The way she describes the string of decisions and strange practices shows that Bill wasn't built for business.
God forbid you pronounced his name "Bidwell". He definitely did not respond well to that.dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 20, 2021I think unlikable is an unfair term. There are a lot of other ways to describe Bill Bidwill like "in over his head" "odd bird" and "should not have been in charge".jeff707 wrote: ↑Oct 20, 2021Bidwill was also an unlikable person. Don't underestimate that part of it, too.dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 19, 2021Part of the reason the football Cardinals had a rough run was they were never welcome in St. Louis.
In the late 1950's and 1960 the NFL Chicago Cardinals were circling the drain financially. Things were so bad they were close to bankruptcy and possible contraction. At the same time the AFL was spinning up and Ortwein side of the Busch family was looking to place an expansion team here in St. Louis. To block that possibility the NFL moved the Cardinals to St. Louis. From that point on Auggie Busch, the rest of the family and their allies treated the Bidwills pretty poorly. That's why the city vs county fight ensued and some of the big corporations/old school St. Louis power brokers didn't get involved or aligned with the Busch clan. The Cardinals slumped off to Arizona to play in a college football stadium for another 15 years.
I have almost no doubt that if St. Louis had gotten a Busch family owned AFL team in 1961 or 1962, they would still be here today.
I knew someone that worked for Bidwill at his Teams, Togs and Tickets store at Chesterfield Mall in the early-mid 1980's. The way she describes the string of decisions and strange practices shows that Bill wasn't built for business.
He may not have been built for his job, but his decisions in how to handle himself in those situations made him unlikeable, by many accounts.
I know he could have been short with people at times; but I think that speaks to his social awkwardness.jeff707 wrote: ↑Oct 20, 2021God forbid you pronounced his name "Bidwell". He definitely did not respond well to that.dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 20, 2021I think unlikable is an unfair term. There are a lot of other ways to describe Bill Bidwill like "in over his head" "odd bird" and "should not have been in charge".jeff707 wrote: ↑Oct 20, 2021Bidwill was also an unlikable person. Don't underestimate that part of it, too.
I knew someone that worked for Bidwill at his Teams, Togs and Tickets store at Chesterfield Mall in the early-mid 1980's. The way she describes the string of decisions and strange practices shows that Bill wasn't built for business.
He may not have been built for his job, but his decisions in how to handle himself in those situations made him unlikeable, by many accounts.
I do know that he was resistant to selling popular brands at his store simply because he didn't personally like the designs: and you didn't want to tell him otherwise. Or that even though "Tickets" was in the name of his store, he didn't want to sell concert tickets on the first day of sale.
You know how he fired Jim Hannifan? Bidwill had the locks changed to his office between halftime and the end of the game. Couldn't tell him to his face or even have a proxy approach the coach. Or look at how he sat back while Schoemehl and McNary sniped at each other. Or how he spent 15 seasons in a college football stadium in Arizona and it took his son to get a new place specifically for them. Or how Bidwill was one of the oldest tenured owners but wielded almost no power in the league.
When I think unlikeable NFL owners you have to reach levels of Jerry Richardson, Dan Snyder, Robert Rub-n-Tug Kraft etc
- 2,929
@bwcrow1s Cheers buddy, no real debate here. We're looking at the same thing. My whole thought was that I understand the desire of so damn many to get back to normal, even though the NFL has acted like a bunch of unsavory mofo's...
And, having read all that solid @dweebe insight on the football Cardinals... Dammit! Imagine what would be if the Busches had been able to buy a new "middle era" team instead of the Cardiac Cardinals and their problematic ownership. Straight-up infuriating.
One day, I hope STL can again get a football franchise, one that has the highest-quality ownership. Meanwhile, let's sue the hell out of them.
And, having read all that solid @dweebe insight on the football Cardinals... Dammit! Imagine what would be if the Busches had been able to buy a new "middle era" team instead of the Cardiac Cardinals and their problematic ownership. Straight-up infuriating.
One day, I hope STL can again get a football franchise, one that has the highest-quality ownership. Meanwhile, let's sue the hell out of them.
Saw all that.
Excuse me while I put my tin foil hat on: is he getting this on his own and great research work ? Or could Bob Blitz and Co be feeding this some/all of this through back channels?
- 2,929
@Suburban Sprawl High quality stuff there buddy. Cheers.
The audacity of these guys still astounds me, as well as their complete lack of foresight.
For the sake of building StanK's mixed-use stadium development in Inglewood, the League very well may lose many billions of dollars AND their protections from antitrust legislation. I mean, it's one thing to crap all over one of your franchise's markets and the laws of that market. It's another thing altogether to willfully act in a manner that you told to the United States Senate - in person and in writing - you would do the exact opposite, and think no one would notice.
The audacity of these guys still astounds me, as well as their complete lack of foresight.
For the sake of building StanK's mixed-use stadium development in Inglewood, the League very well may lose many billions of dollars AND their protections from antitrust legislation. I mean, it's one thing to crap all over one of your franchise's markets and the laws of that market. It's another thing altogether to willfully act in a manner that you told to the United States Senate - in person and in writing - you would do the exact opposite, and think no one would notice.
- 9,559
If this was 3 days before the trail it would be huge but its 3 months, plenty of time to tag in a subKansasCitian wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2021I wonder what kind of blow this is to the prosecution.
- 991
Yeah, this isn’t a huge deal. You may see some try to spin it as a huge win for the NFL, but it’s not going to change the facts of the case at all.
They've always had another firm/other lawyers right alongside: and they're no "B" crew.
https://www.dowdbennett.com/
- 2,929
^As well, while Bob Blitz is no longer representing the Plaintiffs, the law firm Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch will continue to represent the Plaintiffs, as well as the attorneys from Dowd Bennett. First legal victory for the Defendants in this case, so, good for them. It's good for both sides to win arguments in front of the court, especially if an appeal is already anticipated.
What gets me is that Bob Blitz was fundamental to the retention efforts to keep the Rams in STL. His role was as important as that of Dave Peacock. That he has been recused from further representing the Plaintiffs makes perfect sense, as I believe his testimony on the stand will be considerably important to this case. You can't have a Plaintiff's attorney need to be called to the stand by the Defense's attorneys to give testimony. Defendants are fully within their rights to have made this request of the courts, and it would've surprised the hell out of me if that was denied.
That Bob Blitz remained a Plaintiff's attorney for this long is telling.
What gets me is that Bob Blitz was fundamental to the retention efforts to keep the Rams in STL. His role was as important as that of Dave Peacock. That he has been recused from further representing the Plaintiffs makes perfect sense, as I believe his testimony on the stand will be considerably important to this case. You can't have a Plaintiff's attorney need to be called to the stand by the Defense's attorneys to give testimony. Defendants are fully within their rights to have made this request of the courts, and it would've surprised the hell out of me if that was denied.
That Bob Blitz remained a Plaintiff's attorney for this long is telling.
- The NFL absolutely didn't think this case would advance this far, that it would've stayed in arbitration and/or would never advance to the point of trial. Otherwise, they'd reasonably have had the courts remove him from the Plaintiff's counsel team more than a year ago.
- Throughout this time, Bob Blitz has had his team of attorneys become fully aware of everything he knows, all the steps he took in the retention process, and all the things he'd have done if he had remained Plaintiff's counsel.
- It's not certain how much this changes things going forward for the Plaintiff's case at trial. Fair to assume Plaintiff's counsel had anticipated this. Concurrently, even though he was the most prominent member of the Plaintiff's stable of attorneys, I'm not sure if Bob would have even been lead counsel once trial begins; perhaps another attorney is a better one to QB the case in front of the jury.
- 144
I am not concerned about the outcome of the trial based on this and if anything it dents the "unfair judge" angle they've been arguing.dweebe wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2021They've always had another firm/other lawyers right alongside: and they're no "B" crew.
https://www.dowdbennett.com/
I can't deny I am not irritated by it however and my desire to see Kroenke rinsed for billions is stronger than ever.
And to be honest I don't really give a sh*t at this point about the NFL coming back. The Cards, Blues and the MLS team all want to be here and that'll do me. Sure I'd support a team if it was here but I can't say I'm desperate for this. I want pain.
- 2,929
^BWAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahaha!!!!!
They thought they were pulling a rope-a-dope on STL! They let Bob Blitz do all the depositions. They then have Bob Blitz removed as counsel because he's able to be questioned by the Defendants as a witness, which is standard practice. The Defense then tries to get all the depositions retroactively pulled 3 months before trial? Once they realize they're not going to be able to get a summary judgment verdict and the courts throw out the case? No way, says the courts. And that's why they didn't move to disqualify Blitz as Plaintiff's attorney until just now, a strategy to get all the depositions thrown out, 3 months before trial, with no reasonable way for Plaintiffs to get them again before trial. A strategy which failed miserably. If this was their one big legal maneuver, their ace in the hole... yeah, goodnight.
They thought they were pulling a rope-a-dope on STL! They let Bob Blitz do all the depositions. They then have Bob Blitz removed as counsel because he's able to be questioned by the Defendants as a witness, which is standard practice. The Defense then tries to get all the depositions retroactively pulled 3 months before trial? Once they realize they're not going to be able to get a summary judgment verdict and the courts throw out the case? No way, says the courts. And that's why they didn't move to disqualify Blitz as Plaintiff's attorney until just now, a strategy to get all the depositions thrown out, 3 months before trial, with no reasonable way for Plaintiffs to get them again before trial. A strategy which failed miserably. If this was their one big legal maneuver, their ace in the hole... yeah, goodnight.
- 991
Don't be surprised if the NFL files a flurry of different requests to delay or postpone trial over the coming weeks. What will they claim as the reasoning? No clue, but they almost certainly have a list of "next steps" they're going to follow to try and drag this out.