[Elvis]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 1a318.html

Mo. legislators sue Nixon to stop state stadium funding

1 HOUR AGO • BY DAVID HUNN, ALEX STUCKEY

ST. LOUIS • Six state legislators have sued Gov. Jay Nixon and the public board that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome to block state funding of a proposed riverfront football stadium here.

Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, and Reps. Rob Vescovo, R-Arnold; Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City; Mark Parkinson, R-St. Charles; Eric Burlison, R-Springfield; and Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette allege that taxpayer money is “in the process of being spent illegally by the Defendant in pursuance of an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium in St. Louis with taxpayer money,” the suit says.

Nixon’s two-man stadium task force has presented a plan for a $985 million stadium just north of downtown. The task force estimates it will take at least $250 million from the state and city of St. Louis, and say that money will come from an “extension” of the bonds used to build the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play.

The legislators’ suit argues that extending those bonds is illegal.

Schaaf said lawmakers did everything they could to resolve this problem while the Legislature was in session. Bills were filed and discussions were had on the floor but they didn't get anywhere.

"If they want to build a stadium, go ahead but don't expect the state to pick up the tab unless they come to the Legislature and ask permission to go into debt," Schaaf said.

Or, he countered, send the matter to a public vote.

"I always trust the people," Schaaf said. "If the people want to spend $300 million, more power to them."
Parkinson also pushed for a decision during the session that ended May 15.

"It's really disheartening that the governor would say go ahead and do it and it's up to the Legislature to not pay the bill," Parkinson said.

He added that, ultimately, "it would be beneficial for taxpayers to look at the issue to see if the governor is following the letter and the spirit of the law."

Scott Holste, Nixon's spokesman, has not yet responded to a request for comment.

This story is breaking. Check back soon for more details.

[Hacksaw]

This could be significant news. If they cant vote until November and the league moves the relocation vote up to the fall, this could spell doom for the Riverfront project. There is no way the owners could consider that proposal viable in time which eliminates one of the two threats facing Kroenke in his attempt to restore the LA Rams.

Sure seems that a lot of roadblocks keep cropping up for the StL task force. They don't seem to be on the same page. This reminds me of the sitch in LA back in the 90's//

[Elvis]

I know it's a little wacky, but it wouldn't be the craziest thing in the world if SK's friends in the MO legislature were running a little interference for Stan, to help him get what he wants. He's gotta be pretty well connected in MO politics.

Then again, one party doing everything it can to humiliate the leader of the other party is usually reason enough for something like this to happen.

Still, it's up to a court to decide if this case has any merit...

[den-the-coach]

Not sure the Judge will have a decision today, however, if there is any delay, IMO, this is over because after reading the information pertaining to the Carson area I am confident that the only game for LA is Inglewood and I also feel their is a chance the Chargers stay in San Diego.

[den-the-coach]

This from Max off the The Herd Board:

Just listened to Cusumano..

Cusumano just had on a legal sports guy, I think it was Lester Munson.

The legal guys said the stadium deal is in big jeopardy due to this lawsuit. He said Nixon and Peacock mishandled this big time.
He is a pro St. Louis guy and is upset about it.

Cusumano questioned whether Kroenke donated to the campaigns of these Senators. The legal guys said at least one of them is a democrat, and you'd think they'd want the stadium because of the unions.

He also mention that the stadium plan that Nixon and Peacock concocted may be tied to trying to get Khan and the Jags to come to StL. But they didn't go about it the right way. He made is sound like Nixon and Peacock pissed off a lot of people.

All in all, this interview painted a bleak picture for the stadium.

I'll post the podcast when it comes up.

[Elvis]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... adium.aspx

Bill McClellan: Lawsuit 'Really Bad News' For Proposed St. Louis Stadium

Brendan Marks posted on May 28, 2015 12:07

Six state legislators on Wednesday filed suit against Gov. Jay Nixon the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, claiming taxpayer money is “in the process of being spent illegally,” on “an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium.”

Specifically, the suit alleges Nixon's stadium task force’s proposal to extend state bonds to build the stadium is illegal.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan jumped in on The Hollywood Casino Press Box Thursday to discuss the lawsuit and its implications on the development of the proposed riverfront stadiun north of the Gateway Arch.

We also transcribed notable excerpts from the interview, which you can read below:

What's your view on this lawsuit?

"I think this lawsuit would be very hard to go against. If (the stadium task force) want to make the argument the 1988 legislation gave the authority to build multiple stadiums, that's just hard to imagine. I was talking to David Hunn, one of the people who wrote the story...he told me his understanding was originally they were going to try to get the law changed, then they decided against it. I'm thinking they probably figured they'd have a stronger chance of going to court and trying to argue the definition of 'adjacent' rather than get the legislature to issue more bonds to build another stadium. I don't think you can make those arguments to a judge with much of a straight face. I think this is really bad news for the stadium."

With the NFL wanting a firm financing plan sooner than later, the timing of the lawsuit could also pose a problem, right?

"I would suspect when the league looks at this stuff, they had to see this was all kind of built on sand anyways. I know my colleague Bernie Miklasz writes the league trusts Peacock and thinks he's got everything going the right way. But I don't know how you can look at this and say everything is going the right way for the new stadium financing. I think it's all very, very difficult."

Secret deal with Jacksonville?

"If there's some kind of secret deal with (Jaguars owner Shahid) Kahn and Jacksonville, that he's going to try and bring that team here in a couple years but wants a new stadium, this is just the wrong way to go about it. They are alienating people the way they're going about it."

If we lose the Rams, don't you think it makes St. Louis look like less of a city?

"Absolutely. A lot of my colleagues (in the sports department), this is personal to them. They love having a team. It'd be like if you were saying to me they're taking away all the courts of the St. Louis region. Jim Thomas, this is his beat. We're not going to cover the Los Angeles Rams. The sports community takes this very personally."

[Hacksaw]

Thanks for the blow by blow den.

This thing is getting worse for the StL fans. They were trying to build this thing on sand.
In a sense for the LA Inglewood crowd, this leaves Carson as the most likely remaining obstacle. And the Carson project is feeling more like it's being built on quicksand.

Now I get the "California Solution" argument. But what a better way to do it than in Inglewood? Besides the no-brainer financials, you have the depth and quality of the project. Then factor not only being done the quickest, his stadium will house a second team.
Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports wrote: " the person familiar with the situation said In this scenario, Kroenke has agreed to let the league decide which other team would occupy his stadium – a move that might not happen right away."

Good answer. The openness to which ever team is perfect.
This allows the Rams to take the lead giving the league the best end result. If Spanos and Davis are asked to try a little harder, then first you dont have 2 fan bases jilted. 2nd the leverage for the other spot in Stans 2 team stadium still remains. And if it can't get done in either SD or Oakland, then one or the other of them fills the void.
Easier SPIN, as it will a move BACK to LA after StL couldn't swing it. A RETURN not a RELOCATION. The league will have less of a black eye. they get LA filled right with flexibility.

It's a no brainer. Spanos can't be that popular, and Davis shouldn't be rewarded for being the least capable.

[den-the-coach]

And now the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend I'll say it clear
I'll state my case of which I'm certain

[Elvis]

And now the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend I'll say it clear
I'll state my case of which I'm certain

Even i'm singing the Sinatra version in my head...

[den-the-coach]

Even i'm singing the Sinatra version in my head...