[Hacksaw]

I hear you, and we all know the money talks. Look I'm not trying to rain on our happy dance and I'm aware that everybody is spinning their tale (except ESK-Rams) so it all has to be taken with a grain or 2 of salt, but how is that anemic StL proposal still breathing? Or is it? I guess Nixon has been a governor for a long time because he knows how to sell his shyte.

Oh and by the way, you and mm have me leaning back against the wall out here on my ledge. lol

[Elvis]

Well anything's possible and none of us know anything for certain.

But what if Stan is moving to L.A. and the NFL knows it and St. Louis knows. How would anything be different than it is now?

The NFL wants to be seen as doing its due diligence. They don't want a miserable lame duck 2015 season in St. Louis.

Nixon wants to be seen as having done everything in his power to prevent the Rams from leaving, to make Kroenke the bad guy, and keep St. Louis feeling good about its prospects of getting another team.

Everything that's happening is consistent with the idea that Rams to L.A. is a done deal. Doesn't mean it is a done deal, but really, nothing has changed...

[Hacksaw]

OK, I climbed back in through the window. lol

Seriously, I had an epiphany this morning (or was it a nightmare) where I was seeing things through the eyes of StL fan. I guess reading all these arguments back and forth has me thinking Rams in my sleep.
I will be very glad when this is over and August 11 could be a day where something leaks out. I guess it 'depends' on what the outcome of those discussions are and who is privy.
The likely explanation for why all 3 projects are 'alive' is more that likely due to the 'lame duck' scenario you mentioned. (that's why Zelaskos tweet about Rams announcing in August bounced right off)

Is it possible all 3 teams are in on it? 'It' being Rams are building Inglewood, let's keep Carson alive so that the cities of Oak and SD get on the ball and keep StL alive to maintain a NFL rating for the future?,,, but the cities are not privy?

Get 'er done Stan !! Give 'em hell.

[bubbaramfan]

Hacksaw asks "Is it possible all 3 teams are in on it?" Its well known that Spanos and Kroenke played golf together at Torrey Pines in La Jolla in December and then again in January. Then Stan announces he's building a stadium in LA a couple weeks later. What might they have talked about on the golf course? their swing? Their wives? Or just maybe they were scheming. After all, they both own NFL teams, and both are not getting what they want in the way of their teams stadiums. Pure speculation on my part. but these two spending so much time alone together makes me wonder, and personally, I think they have had this stadium thing all planned out long ago. Spanos has wanted a new stadium for over ten years. Kroenke had enough of St. Louis when they reneged after he won arbitration, and that's when the ball got rolling. I'm guessing they have a planned timeline to release info, intended to placate the public of their respective cities. These guys have sharp lawyers and public relations people working for them.

Yeah Hacksaw, my gut tells me these guys have had this mapped out for a while. Kroenke, Spanos, Davis and the NFL. I bet even most of the other owners know, ala Jerry Jones comments. Meanwhile the fans and the media are fed a line of BS a little at a time, and will be the last to know. My 'ol man always told me "don't believer everything you hear, look at what they do, not what they say".

(Was that a rant?)

[Hacksaw]

Nope bubba, not a rant. I would feel very manipulated if the league is in on this whole caper though. I would be pleased with that eventual outcome and I am not saying it isn't possible, but it isn't right.
But it makes as much sense as any of the rest of this, maybe more. And notice that the teams really aren't saying very much other than the politically correct line or 2, , or nothing at all. It's the cities that are making all the noise with the league encouraging them.

[Elvis]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... kA.twitter

No arguments heard in St. Louis stadium funding case

22 MINUTES AGO • BY DAVID HUNN

ST. LOUIS • Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley declined to hear arguments on Friday in the Edward Jones Dome authority’s suit seeking to sidestep a public vote on new stadium funding.

Frawley did, however, lay out a timeline for the case. He gave St. Louis city counselors a week to write and issue arguments defending the city ordinance requiring a vote; He gave Dome attorneys another week after that to counter. He set the next hearing for 1 p.m. June 25, in division 22.
Attorneys said they believed Frawley would hear oral arguments that day.

Frawley didn’t say in court when he would rule and did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

This story is developing. Check back soon for comments from those in attendance.

[moklerman]

I don't see how the stadium task force can try and argue that they don't need the approval of it's citizens on a $1B project.

I would never claim to know how the political machine works but from the citizen side of things, their whole approach stinks. They've alienated the owner of the team and done everything they can to circumvent the checks and balances that prevent frivolous spending.

[den-the-coach]

I don't see how the stadium task force can try and argue that they don't need the approval of it's citizens on a $1B project.

I would never claim to know how the political machine works but from the citizen side of things, their whole approach stinks. They've alienated the owner of the team and done everything they can to circumvent the checks and balances that prevent frivolous spending.

I concur, but I don't trust the process. One would surmise that allowing approval via a public vote would be prudent, what's the harm? But the timeline is the harm and because of this the judge could decide accordingly. My hope like others is the Judge rules the right way and the public is allowed to vote. It does not take the stadium off the table, but Kroenke can give Nixon a crayon so he can color him gone.

[Elvis]

I don't see how the stadium task force can try and argue that they don't need the approval of it's citizens on a $1B project.

I would never claim to know how the political machine works but from the citizen side of things, their whole approach stinks. They've alienated the owner of the team and done everything they can to circumvent the checks and balances that prevent frivolous spending.

All good points.

But St. Louis is in danger of losing their team. I'm sure most of them want action not red tape, they want everything possible done to keep the Rams. So from their perspective it makes sense.

Also, maybe the Rams are already gone and the politicians know it. Why not talk tough, take bold action, bad mouth the owner, that way it's clear who the bad guy is when the Rams leave and hopefully the politicians won't get the blame...

[moklerman]

I don't see how the stadium task force can try and argue that they don't need the approval of it's citizens on a $1B project.

I would never claim to know how the political machine works but from the citizen side of things, their whole approach stinks. They've alienated the owner of the team and done everything they can to circumvent the checks and balances that prevent frivolous spending.

All good points.

But St. Louis is in danger of losing their team. I'm sure most of them want action not red tape, they want everything possible done to keep the Rams. So from their perspective it makes sense.

Also, maybe the Rams are already gone and the politicians know it. Why not talk tough, take bold action, bad mouth the owner, that way it's clear who the bad guy is when the Rams leave and hopefully the politicians won't get the blame...

I think it's more a case of the latter. From the start of what we've heard publicly, the stadium task force has been taking swipes at Kroenke. Which doesn't add up to really wanting this thing to actually get done.

"St. Louis" is hanging it's hat on how quickly they've put together the task force and plan and whatever, but IMO, that has all come AFTER the proverbial horse was out of the barn. The did SOMETHING to piss Kroenke off. I'd bet on it. ESK has always championed Missouri and IMO, was going to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Right up until the last lease checkpoint. St. Louis failed to meet the requirements of the lease back in 2005 but the Rams let them slide. When the next checkpoint came around in 2010, ESK was now the owner and didn't let them slide. Maybe that's when it all started.

But probably a little earlier. My guess is that St. Louis thought they were going to get the same consideration from ESK that Georgia was giving them. When he didn't, it caused a rift. Apparently, an insurmountable one. It wouldn't surprise me at all if ESK had a very similar idea for St. Louis to what the stadium task force is presenting. When he took over the Rams he was talking about global recognition and had big plans for St. Louis. My guess is, he and St. Louis couldn't split the "pie". So, since ESK's the one with the money, he gets to choose where he spends it.