Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board

Adman

Members
  • Content Count

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adman

  • Rank
    Sophomore

Recent Profile Visitors

3,892 profile views
  1. Agree with your comment on Yuri dishing to Hargrove on the breakaway. Of all 11 of his assists - some dazzling - this one was my favorite. It was an easy two for Yuri. But he put himself aside to lift up a teammate who needed it. That’s a real teammate.
  2. Thanks for your excellent input. One correction. There are two other pleadings (beyond binding arbitration) that have been settled. The defendants initially plead to have the suit thrown out for lack of merit (or similar.) Judge rejected this. Then defendants plead for a change in venue from STL City. Again, judge rejected. I believe one or both of these pleadings were appealed to State of Missouri and rejected. There may have been a third pleading (memory escapes me) with mixed decision from judge. Bottom line: the defendants have lost time and time again, including recent SCOTUS rejection of the stay. It’s time for this to get interesting.
  3. Duffman, sorry meant to also address your last phrase. Whether plaintiffs would want money for new stadium is a good question. If their true objective is a team vs cash, then yes they would use money for stadium and likely negotiate more cash for other purposes. Trying to learn the plaintiffs’ true objectives is my #1 question.
  4. Agree this will be settled. No way it ends up in court. The number should be large. As to money for new stadium, disagree. The NFL already has an ongoing $250M fund for new stadium construction. Kroenke has plenty to cover the balance. When compared to the possible cost of jury award — particularly with 10-figure punitive award tacked on — they’ll find the dough.
  5. First, I’m not a lawyer. The attys on this Board will have much better opinions on your questions. But I’ll add a few things. Have no idea what work has been accomplished by Blitz’ team. But the case is no longer on hold. Because SCOTUS denied the stay, it moves forward. It might get delayed again if SCOTUS decides to hear the case, but for the many reasons explained earlier in this post, not likely. As I understand it, they have completed the pleadings phase (the defendants have lost all rounds,) and should be somewhere in the discovery phase. I would think discovery (and trial, if it happens) would be where most of the heavy lifting and costs occur.
  6. Sorry, am on phone, didn’t see this and the following couple of posts when I just posted a moment ago. Your suggestion of outside fund companies possibly helping to finance the suit for % of deal is good. Thanks a lot. My point is still the same: the financing - however financed - is not unlimited if Kroenke plays the stall game. It’s a game of chicken. Agree it’s a good bet though.
  7. Agree with everything here except Kroenke not being able to stall until plaintiff runs out of money. Since attorney Bob Blitz is working 100% on contingency, he is self-financing the prosecution of this case, and will likely end up spending $15-20M doing so. How he is doing this is unknown (law firm coffers, personal funds, bank loans, etc.) Kroenke’s pocketbook is way, way deeper. Not saying Blitz can’t get additional funding to stay in game if Kroenke plays the stall game. But the stakes for him - already high - would get higher.
  8. Yes, it is a single lawsuit. The NFL itself, the other 31 teams and their respective owners. Roughly 63 defendants. You can read the list of names in the link I posted above. As to whether the plaintiffs can settle separately/individually with team entities, respective owners and the NFL itself, and if so, whether that’s a smart strategy is way beyond my pay grade. My gut says not to settle separately, that greater leverage is achieved by holding everyone’s feet to the fire. But the attys on the this board will know way more.
  9. Your take is really interesting. I've been asking many friends whether they'd welcome NFL back IF at no cost to taxpayers and there was sufficient protection in the lease to prevent what happened from happening again. Some take your position. But most -- especially those who are former season ticket holders -- say yes. As to why that is, I have a couple thoughts. First, those fans love the game, the league (other than Rams fiasco, and concussions,) the pre-game culture, etc. Second, time heals all wounds. That I agree with. This last summer, when I saw something like 12 straight standing ovations for Albert Pujols throughout his entire at-bats -- once even when the game was on the line and fans were cheering HIM, not the Cardinals -- I suspected an NFL return would be possible if safeguards were established. (By the way, not saying Albert is as bad as Stanley. But Albert was persona non grata in this town for years.) As to my own position, I have not watched a down of the NFL or clicked on a game story since they left. Agree with you. But if the NFL corrects their wrong (as they did with Cleveland,) I'll be back. And as the largest market (3M+- pop) without an NFL team, it is a matter of pride. Orlando and Sacramento are close in market size, but served by close-by NFL teams. Portland, too. STL is most definitely a 3-major-sport market. My internal debate is are we a 3.5 sport market with MLS being the .5. So do the plaintiffs want the cash or the team/cash for stadium? The end game.......... must be some interesting conversations going on at City Hall, St. Louis County headquarters and the Dome.
  10. Old guy, Sadly, I agree with this. I think he will delay and delay, ringing up the legal bill of the plaintiffs (law firm), etc. There will come a time where push will come to shove and the NFL may put sufficient pressure on him to settle this financially... or enough pressure to get San Diego to move. Doubt seriously it'll ever make a courtroom. But if it does and jury makes a $10-20B award, he'll appeal - again and again. But the possibility of an award in that stratosphere -- in award-happy STL City -- might be the strongest motivator in making a deal.
  11. much of this I agree with. i'd differ in having the NFL pay the complete cost of building the new stadium proposed to the north of the Arch. That was about $1.1B as I recall. The original proposal already had them paying $400-500M (as I recall) utilizing funds from the NFL for new stadium construction and funds directly from Kroenke and the Rams. So another $750M sounds about right. as to 30 year agreement, it would be to play in new stadium - not old dome. and they'd have to agree to local ownership either as 100% owners (or less) with first right of refusal. could be quasi-gvmt -- ala Green Bay.
  12. I'm not sure how I missed the updates to this thread back in September since I'd jumped in with lots of (long) posts back in January. But found it today and thought I'd jump back in with some new info. First, here are two more reasons to add to Clock's four that the Supreme Court wouldn't likely hear the appeal: 5. In October, the Supreme Court rejected the stay requested by Kroenke and the defendants. So the case now moves forward. While this doesn't mean the full appeal won't be heard by SCOTUS, it is usually strong indicator that they won't. 6. I'm not a lawyer, but the case seems like fairly simple contract law to me, one highly favoring the plaintiffs, and one the defendants have already lost three times (STL City, MO Court of Appeals, MO Supreme Court.) Defendants argue their lease with the City/County/Dome required disagreements be resolved through binding arbitration (rather than in court.) The plaintiffs argue that binding arbitration only applied while the lease was in force. Once the Rams opted to leave, the contract is no longer valid. Thus the plaintiffs are within their rights to have this settled in court. After denying a stay in October, would SCOTUS really get involved in a fairly straightforward contract dispute? I saw earlier posts discussing the $ in damages in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking $1B+. Per the Washington Post: "The city of St. Louis and other regional entities filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the NFL and all 32 of its teams and owners. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 billion in damages, claiming the league violated its own relocation policies in approving the Rams’ move to Los Angeles, a decision that inflicted great economic harm on the place the team had called home for 21 years." Some might argue there's some fluff in the numbers. I've independently learned that, yes, it is realistically in that financial neighborhood. And remember, that doesn't include any punitive damages the jury (in award-happy St. Louis City) may see fit. It's a big number. Blitz is probably investing $15-20M to prosecute the case. And as we know, none of this is recoverable from taxpayers if he loses. 100% contingency. This is a real case. NFL worried. Kroenke, too, since he apparently is paying any financial bill on behalf of the NFL and fellow owners. There is additional financial pressure on the Chargers right now. Not selling many PSLs for new LA stadium. Not selling many tickets in the soccer stadium they're playing in. Little support for them in LA. Chargers also not currently contributing to the Rams' construction costs, major irritation to the Rams. My current questions are: was the plaintiffs' original objective primarily financial? say... a $500M-2B settlement? or primarily a team relocation? (Chargers, for example. Little to no taxpayer cost, and involvement of local ownership... perhaps Blitz, perhaps gvmt as co-owners) if the answer was "2", given St. Louis has now landed an MLS team, is "1" now the objective? Finally, I re-read the original lawsuit today and remembered how interesting a read it is. If you liked the insideSTL story/link above, you'll really like reading the lawsuit. Don't be put off by its 52 pages. Almost half are simple listings of the defendants. Here's the link: https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/18/b18dd730-f51b-5870-9bb4-09b80c74862c/58ee5c62254f1.pdf.pdf
  13. Good thought... Before my post, I had considered that, too. But his last sentence, "The rest are unknowns, some with great promise by the way." got me wondering about the meaning. We'll see when Old Guy responds.
  14. Old guy, love your optimism. I think it'll be a really long shot to finish at an A level, but hope I'm wrong. I agree we have many players that are unknown factors. But I do have one question. What makes you think Diarra is the singular player destined for build up and development? You think he has greater promise than Yuri, Jimerson, Bell, Hargrove, Jacobs, Hankton, et al?
  15. Yep, I had two tickets, mine and my elderly mother’s. She stopped driving a few months ago and I made a second trip for her. But she was at the game, cheering for that 10th free throw.
×
×
  • Create New...