Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board

Adman

Members
  • Content Count

    380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adman

  • Rank
    Sophomore

Recent Profile Visitors

3,823 profile views
  1. Thanks a lot for posting. Very nice from Fox2.
  2. I'll be there. Departing Friday morning via SLC, arrive in Oakland about 11am. Return to STL Monday. See everyone at pre-game party in San Jose. Anyone seen details on this yet? Let's go Bills!
  3. I know the broadcasters said it was something Goodwin said. But I think it may have been physical contact in the neck/head area by Goodwin. As the two of them were wrestling for position, Goodwin's hands came up fairly high. It didn't look intentional, but the refs are watching this close. Just a guess...
  4. Brian, I'll also add that Dave Steward is a tremendous individual. Honest, charitable, extremely fair minded; one of the best people I've ever met in the business world. Bringing basic fairness into the Title IX world -- due process, etc -- is exactly what I'd expect.
  5. This is a great thread. He does a tremendous job, best by far of anyone who's ever tried. I agree with Cheese that he should slow down just a bit. It'll help in a big way. But otherwise, he shouldn't change a thing. Not only is he enthusiastic and has the respect of the student section, he is authentic. Not a put-on.
  6. excellent post and generally agree with you. but there is some new news in your post and it may further mitigate Ford's situation. "And in the end, Dr. P and SLU (right or wrong) chose not to follow the recommendations of the outside experts they hired to conduct the investigation - and instead, kicked all three (3) off campus." to my knowledge, this has never been reported before. we only know that Goodwin's original punishment was appealed and ultimately shortened. so, a couple questions: - what were the recommendations of the outside law firm brought in to handle investigation component for each of the four involved? - why do you think they decided for harsher penalties? - any other complaints with the way it was handled?
  7. Sounds about right when you consider the principle their relocation guidelines are based on - and indeed one of the guidelines itself says - it cannot be done to enrich an owner. Of course these guidelines were only internal, to guide the behavior within their cartel. And they have another lawyerly out: the guidelines only apply until they decide they don’t. But sounds like they already have enough evidence to show what fraud the NFL perpetrated, likely from the beginning. And discovery hasn’t even begun. A heck of a fun suit to work on if you were plaintiff attorney.
  8. The only thing I’ve heard is sometime later this year. But I still think unlikely there will be a public airing in court. Others on the board have argued the NFL isn’t afraid of bad PR, and in some ways I guess I agree. But when the likely damages (cash, PR and more) approach $500M, my bet is they’ll nix open court and the horse trading will begin.
  9. Agree with you on both counts. Wouldn’t spend it yet either. But there’s some unique parts of the case. Indeed they have hired a legal dream team, at the league level, some on team level, both in St Louis and elsewhere. They have been throwing a ton at it — which everyone knew they’d do from the start. This is actually one of the reasons I’m fascinated by the case. When plaintiff Bob Blitz filed the suit (yes, the same Bob Blitz who was key guy on committee to save the Rams with Dave Peacock,) he knew perhaps more than anyone the depth of the NFL’s pockets and the legal dream team they’d buy. Formidable, no doubt. Yet when he filed it, he agreed to work 100% on contingency. No cost to taxpayers. He knows to successfully prosecute the suit - over the likely 3-5 years it’ll be in the courts - and keep up with legal monkey business the NFL will throw at him just to mess with him and ring up his costs - he’ll be investing many millions of his own (or his firm’s) money. I’ll let the attys on this board speculate on what that number likely is. Safe to say, a lot of money. But it is a huge financial risk and certainly not one would take on just for purely vanity, revenge, or standing up for yourself reasons. Frankly, I don’t believe it is primarily just recovering the $16M his City/County/Dome clients spent saving the Rams. Contingent fees probably wouldn’t cover the legal costs he’ll ring up prosecuting the case. So why then would Blitz take on all this risk? What does he know that makes him very optimistic about chances of winning? And what are his objectives and those of the City/CountyDome? Some dough to fix up the Dome? A new team? More dough to add to gvmt budgets? Make the NFL build ‘em a new stadium? Or a big payday they all split? Some of all? And are Blitz’ objectives at all different in taking on the risk? Does he want to own a team? Is this included in his contingency deal? What’s the end game?
  10. Well, presuming this case makes it to trial, it’ll be tried in the city of St. Louis in front of St. Louis city residents who, beyond likely being just as angry at Kroenke and his ilk as anyone, are notorious for being highly favorable to plaintiff cases and big financial awards. It is exactly the place you’d want it tried if you were the plaintiffs. And the defendants’ plea for venue change was rejected. Likewise, the plea to force arbitration (again keeping out of St. Louis Circuit Court,) was rejected on appeal by the Missouri Supreme Court. So while the country may have gone on with their lives and it’s business as usual for the NFL, even if they’re not afraid of bad PR, I suspect there is a payday coming. And because this isn’t a nuisance suit - the damages potentially reach $1B and a favorable decision could have effect on future franchise moves - I suspect the payday will be significant. Actually may be more expensive to settle now than other solutions when Rams left. Either way will be fascinating to watch.
  11. Dark, you are! But you have a point. Because of multiple other scandals at the time, I was actually surprised there an equitable solution wasn't developed when the decision to leave was made. They just added another one, controversial for a bit, then forgotten.
  12. Thanks a lot for this, TheWiz. Answers a lot of questions. Hope there's nothing significant about NET score that changes the number of victories needed to Dance. But excellent! I'd go a bit further in saying that in addition to the favorable lines you describe above in our games to come (as it stands now,) that the oddsmakers will agree with you, with the Billikens likely being favored in each of their remaining games except @VCU and @Dayton.
  13. dlarry, good for you. truly, i have not watched any NFL game -- nor clicked on any game story online, etc. -- since they left. actually do have to admit one small exception: i have attended a couple super bowl parties during which I "casually" looked in on the game occasionally, couldn't have cared less who won... and did so only because i didn't want to be rude to the hosts. don't miss it either. matter of fact, i've long since even thought about the NFL on sundays. a fraud was perpetrated in too many ways to count - both to us as people, consumers and to the St. Louis market - and i was determined to not support it. my bitterness continues, but i funnel it into following the major Rams/NFL lawsuit very closely. a bit of revenge, no doubt; but what i really like is debating the real "end game" of the lawsuit. why did we file? what do we hope to gain? why did the attorneys take the case on 100% contingency? and what does that, in and of itself, say about the suit's merits? consequently, what are the attorneys' goals vs their clients' goals? is it about vanity? getting the $16M we invested in keeping the team? revenge/embarrassing them/teaching them a lesson? getting $1+ billion? a new team? a combination of some or all? how does this play into (or not) the new XFL team and pursuit of MSL, etc? now that the case seems to be beyond the pleading stage -- in which pleas to have the case thrown out on lack of merit, have venue changed, and require the plaintiffs to settle via arbitration -- have all been rejected, there is no doubt this is a serious and for-real case. it is not folly. so... now what are the chances of win for the City/County/Dome? will it ever see a courtroom? if so, what will the surely devastatingly sordid emails and other comms reveal about the bad actors of the nfl? there are a hundred more questions like this. it is fascinating topic. i have no inside sources on this, but decent research, i like to think logical reasoning, strong opinions on these questions, and if backed in corner to make $100 bet, a hypothesis on how it all ends. we shall see. as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, keep an eye out for next 6 months... it'll be very interesting.
  14. Without taking this thread in a completely different direction, I suspect there are bad things in store for Mr Kroenke, his fellow owners and the NFL. The largest of the four lawsuits filed after the Rams' departure is about to get very, very interesting. This is the one filed by the City, St. Louis County and the Dome Authority which showed potential damages north of $1Billion. I know there was a lot of snickering when originally filed a few years ago. But the defendants have lost all court decisions in the pleading phase. The most recent - and most significant - plea tried to force the suit into mandatory arbitration which was rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court. As you can imagine, after the City/County/Dome begin the discovery phase (evidence... emails, letters, and much more) which would be ultimately revealed in open court and reported all over ESPN and sports media -- something the defendants are highly desperate to avoid -- your wish may come true. These wheels of justice are turning slowly. But keep an eye on the news over the next six months or so. Patience...
×
×
  • Create New...