Adman
-
Posts
602 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Adman
-
-
2 hours ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:
Makes sense, Adman. Question: Is there not a point in these situations in which the plaintiff stops incurring expenses? At least rather large ones? I'd imagine the money needed to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc. would mostly be done by now. The fact that they are just waiting on Kroenke's SC appeal....would that not mean they are just waiting? What significant costs could they possibly be incurring? On the other hand if your sourcing of funds comes from loans, etc. you may have no choice to settle if the term of your loan is coming up.
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.
-
2 hours ago, cheeseman said:
Something that many may not know is that there are Hedge Funds and Venture Capitalists who often fund these types of law suits for a % of the money won. I would be shocked if the local law firms are not being backed this way.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:
Plaintiff attorneys are working
pro bonoon a contingency fee. They only get paid if they win/settle. This allows the plaintiff to take away Kroenke's leverage. He is notorious for stalling until the plaintiff runs out of money. Can't do that here.Now, if this does go to court and Kroenke is successful I'm not sure who pays the legal bills. I'm not worried about this possibility because I know Kroenke and the NFL are f**ked.
As for my unsolicited opinion, I don't settle for anything less than $1B. Use a portion of that money to pay of Dome debt and upgrade the convention center to rival Nashville's new(er) convention center. Year-round conventions bring money to STL coffers. 8-10 football games a year do not.
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 hours ago, cheeseman said:
Are you sure that the NFL and Kroenke lawsuits are tied together? I think they may be separate but Kroenke has a responsibility to cover some expenses in both. Kroenke may not be able to stop the NFL from settling perhaps.
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.
-
3 hours ago, slufanskip said:
I don't want an NFL team. What a piece of shite Jerry Jones is. St. Louis would be stupid to make any deal with the NFL.
IMO no one in St. Louis should watch the NFL it's akin to paying money to the guy you caught steeling from you.
Look at what the NFL has done to ex players and what it did with the concussion issue. I won't be surprised if the NFL is fading away in 30 years. Youth participation has gone way down and will continue to go down. Hell, many ex NFL players say they wouldn't let their kids play.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Old guy said:
I think what you say is an attractive solution, however I have no idea whatsoever about what kind of solution will be applied in this case. One thing I know is that Kroenke has lots of money, and the NFL probably has quite a lot as well. I have the feeling that Kroenke is the kind of guy that will continue pursuing his way legally regardless of how much it costs, and way past any settlements negotiated by the NFL and the other parties. In other words, I think it will take some time before it ends.
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.
-
2 hours ago, CBFan said:
Thank you for the updates.
I have felt when I began reading your posts that the cheapest way out for the NFL would be a deal with relocating the Chargers. For that to work there would be a lot of strings attached. 1) The NFL must make whole all organizations involved in the new stadium to keep the Rams in St.Louis. I believe that is 16 million. 2) The NFL must pay off the loan amount left on the dome about 100 million. 3) The NFL must pay 250 million on improvements to the dome. 4) The NFL must agree unconditionally to play in the dome for 30 years. 5) The NFL will not charge a relocation fee.
Money wise this is cheaper than a potential 1 billion dollar settlement.
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.
-
On 9/7/2019 at 1:11 PM, Clock_Tower said:
Unlikely the US Supreme Court takes this case for 4 reasons:
1. Sheer numbers. Every case which is appealed from a decision of the 50 highest courts in our 50 states can and often are appealed to the US Supreme Court. From the number of cases which are decided by our 50 states, the number of cases the US Supreme Court actually considers is rather small.
2. Case not over. Unless there is a significant legal issue in question, the case is not over, Stan the and his co-conspirator Roger Goodell/NFL can still win, so the odds of the US Supreme Court taking a case prior to resolution on the merits is also slim. No doubt the NFL has allies and will call in its favors, but to decide a case or to decide a case before the trial even happens is also somewhat rare. What's the irreparable harm a St. Louis jury can make which cannot be set aside later?
3. The US Supreme Court likes to take cases which involved a significant federal question (not seeing anything other the NFL and anti-trust laws which aren't supposed to apply - unless the NFL themselves are in violation.
4. Unequal rulings within the circuit. Missouri is in the 8th Circuit but the pending lawsuit is in Missouri's state court (not federal district court). I am not aware of any lawsuit in the 9th Circuit (California) or the 8th Circuit - but if there were, and if there differing rulings, then the US Supreme Court might want to decide.
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:
CBFan, Spoon-Balls and TheChosenOne like this -
2 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:
I think Old Guy means that he thinks Diarra is the only (long-term) project and the rest should be able to contribute some time this season.
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.
-
On 11/3/2019 at 8:49 AM, Old guy said:
Wiz, nice analysis which makes perfect sense from a strictly Bayesian point of view. However we have a massive question mark for our team this year because only 3 members of the team are real veterans from last season. Two others (Hankton and Jacobs) played next to very little last year and have to be considered as freshmen +. The rest are unknown factors. So far I see only one player that I would consider to be destined for build up and development with only occasional play this season, this is Diarra. The rest are unknowns, some with great promise by the way.
I do not imagine this is a situation where the cocoon will burst open and a full fledged butterfly will take off. We are not going to come into a position of strength from the first game we play, which most certainly does not mean we cannot win games. Nope full maturity of the team requires, as you know, some time before things gel in the way Ford desires to have. This will most likely make the non conference games a bit dicey. We will see what the future brings our way, of course, but I want to come on record stating that Team Blue may, in my opinion, end this year beyond the preliminary expectations, at an A level.
I think this will be a great and exiting season for us Bills fans. Go Bills!
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?
-
On 10/31/2019 at 10:12 PM, White Pelican said:
Well they
confiscatedexchanged my ticket for a sandwich. I guess you had two tickets though to get two sandwiches.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.
-
I redeemed free sandwich two separate times this afternoon at the Hampton/Chippewa location. They were immediately aware of the promo and happy to redeem, both in drive-thru and at front counter. Excellent sandwich, by the way.
-
6 hours ago, SShoe said:
Fwiw, the ball's rotation looked much better on his made free throw than it did at pretty much any point last year.
Agree. And from mechanics standpoint, both of his free throws were straight - not left or right. His one miss was short. So at least we have that - so far.
-
1 minute ago, slu72 said:
Are we still 0 do whatever?
Yes
-
1 minute ago, Westy03 said:
This is some of the worst basketball I have seen from any SLU team
Besides the 0-13 from 3, I don’t think they’ve made a shot more than 5 ft from the rim.
-
New story on tonight's exhibition from the P-D. Interesting comments from Coach Ford.
-
12 hours ago, SLURadioBoy said:
Here’s the story Fox 2 did on Collins and Hargrove for those who missed it...
https://fox2now.com/2019/08/06/2019-20-billikens-mens-basketball-will-have-local-flavor/
Thanks a lot for posting. Very nice from Fox2.
-
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!
Bay Area Billiken likes this -
1 minute ago, Franchise_08 said:
Just watched over and over and he didn’t say a goddamn thing to chinstrap
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...
-
11 hours ago, brianstl said:
The column is on target.
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.
brianstl likes this -
On 2/4/2018 at 9:37 AM, cheeseman said:
Not sure if it is the PA system or not - he tends to speak to fast and then one word runs into the other. It is important for when you talk in a microphone in a big venue that you need to slow your rate of speech down so the words do not trip over each other. He does seem to like what he does and that is always half the battle.
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.
-
16 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:
Coaches should definitely be held accountable for their actions -- their wins/losses, their players they assemble, etc. Players not working out and transferring, while somewhat "normal" does fall on the head coach. IMO, taking chances on CG was probably worth the risk. Late scholarships (June) to Thor was probably also worth the risk. Graduate transfers scholarships (by their nature being only 1 year) are also generally worth the risk - unless they are continually used to deprive youngsters of valuable opportunities to develop. Santos? JJ voluntarily left due to perceived lack of playing time. The initial wave of transfers in Coach Fords first year -- Bartley, Malik, etc. were probably mutual releases (or simply Ford's decision) based upon the new coach -- a coach who did not recruit you and you most likely will run a different offense/defense and value others/others' skills more.
But Situation 2 seems totally different. If our guys did anything so wrong,, why were they not prosecuted and/or expelled immediately. If so, blame Coach Ford for recruited knuckleheads and convicts. Instead, conventional wisdom was that punishment would be a shorter time frame (5 to 10 games), a semester, 1/3 year, loss of student housing... not expulsion after waiting nearly the whole season. The boys were even kicked out of student housing and then allowed to return to student housing. 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. Awful. But the actual time line and facts do matter. As 3 Star eloquently stated, if you want a ballhandler, recruit a good ball handler and if you want a shooter, recruit a good shooter - don't try to convert guys into becoming a ballhandler or a shooter. IMO, Coach Ford did exactly that. He kept the transition PG (Bishop -- not my all time favorite, and not trying to pretend he would have been the next Mitchell or McCall) and brought in another one (Graves). Both would be quite helpful running the offense right now. And for those who still think Coach Ford (a pretty good PG himself in his day) is too stupid to know how to run an offense, let me say that our offense would run more smoothly with not only Goodwin but also Bishop and Grave. And as to an outside shoot to keep the defenses honest, here's an excerpt or update on Adonis Henriquez (note: his league is not Icelandic league but...):
:Most recently, the 23-year-old started five games for Gregorio Urbano Gilbert of the Santiago League of the Dominican Republic. In those games, he averaged 20.8 points per game, 4.6 rebounds per game, 2.8 assists per game and 1.2 steals per game. Henriquez also shot 46 percent from the field and 42 percent from deep.
Previously, of course, we all know that:
In his freshman campaign, the 6-foot-6 guard earned 2014-15 All-American Athletic Conference Rookie Team honors. That season, he shot 42.8 percent from the field and 39.4 percent from 3-point range.His accuracy dropped in his sophomore year, as he shot 39.3 percent from the field and 35.8 percent from 3, not earning any conference awards. However, Henriquez led UCF in 3-point field goals made on the same team as the Knights’ all-time leader in 3s: guard Matt Williams.
Anyway, bringing in good, skilled players is tough. Most freshmen take a year or 2 to acclimate. Most transfers take awhile to acclimate as well. Not only did we unexpectedly lose three (3) quality, veteran guys as a result of Situation 2, but we also waited a year for Adonis to gain NCAA eligibility after transferring to SLU, could not use any of the three (3) last year, we lost Goodwin for the last portion of the season but we lost all three (3) permanently for this year and Coach Ford could not replace any of the three (3) with more reliable recruits signed early in the Fall as opposed to late in the Spring/Summer. Had Coach Ford known that all three (3) would be expelled, does anyone not think that Coach would have recruited a highschool PG (a guy like Yuri) or a highschool school shooter (a guy like Jimmerson) to play and help us this year? Everyone should remember the real time lines involved.
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?
-
On 1/30/2019 at 1:46 PM, keyser soze said:
"My Settlement"
Take the value of the St. Louis Rams $1.45B vs. the value of the los angeles rams $3.20B, the difference gets you the cash settlement, $1.750B lump sum cash payment.
FYI, Kroenke is Land Rich and Cash POOR, he's super leveraged............
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.
-
5 hours ago, Spoon-Balls said:
For those of you in the know on the lawsuits in the pipelines against the Rams, is there any expected timeline when we can expect to see that lying sack Kroenke getting his deposition? I would pay good money to see it.
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.
Off topic: Screw Stan Kroenke
in Billikens.com Main Board
Posted
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.