I agree, except that whatever gets built in LA probably WILL be AT&T Stadium 2.0. A new stadium in St. Louis is going to be really nice. A new stadium in LA is going to be a total show piece. The NFL won't let them build a stadium that doesn't have every bell and every whistle.dweebe wrote:I don't think Kronke has the ego problem that Blank does. The additional $200 million for the new Falcons stadium makes it seem more and more like he's trying to build AT&T Stadium 2.0.jstriebel wrote:^ That's interesting. I'd find it reassuring if Kroenke wasn't worth 3x more than Blank. But it's still interesting.
Would Kroenke really want to carry the entire funding burden as he would in LA?
- 284
Why don't the NFL just expand 2 teams in LA?? just leave all the other teams as is. Regardless L.A. isn't any closer to getting a new stadium funded and built for next year nor the following years. Kroenke is better off putting his chips in here where cost of things are quite a bit more cheaper and affordable. I the one thing that sticks out about San diego is the owner of the chargers has been trying to get the city to build a new stadium downtown for nearly 20 years and i don't think the city is willing to put a lot of public funds into a downtown stadium and Oakland doesn't have the money. St.Louis is ahead of both San Diego and Oakland for possible new stadium. As far as L.A fans i don't pay them any attention they are mostly rude obnoxious people and at least Rams fans here do come to the games even if the stadium isn't full. We do need to realize this is the 11th straight losing season here and they've only had 3 years of a winning record. Out of 48 years of NFL here in St.Louis both Cardinals and Rams combined for a total of 16 winning seasons. That's dismal so i think people here now have a legit reasoning on why not to believe until they've won more than 8 games ..
Jason Cole's commented on twitter the other day that stated:
"Kroenke looking for the best deal. He'd prefer STL, but not afraid to go to LA."
Here's a link to his thoughts on an LA radio show about the Raiders and Chargers being the possible teams to land there.
http://kfwbam.com/2014/12/17/jason-cole ... up-in-l-a/
I think an interesting point to note is how long San Diego and Oakland have been involved in their stadium conundrums. San Diego, especially, has been at it for nearly half the time the Rams have been in STL. Both venues in San Diego and Oakland make the EJD look not so bad (and it isn't in reality).
"Kroenke looking for the best deal. He'd prefer STL, but not afraid to go to LA."
Here's a link to his thoughts on an LA radio show about the Raiders and Chargers being the possible teams to land there.
http://kfwbam.com/2014/12/17/jason-cole ... up-in-l-a/
I think an interesting point to note is how long San Diego and Oakland have been involved in their stadium conundrums. San Diego, especially, has been at it for nearly half the time the Rams have been in STL. Both venues in San Diego and Oakland make the EJD look not so bad (and it isn't in reality).
I don't know if many remember or were old enough to see the old Sheraton Convention Center tower which was demolished to make way for the dome in 1992. I always liked the old Sheraton Tower - it was 660 rooms and really big. Wouldn't mind seeing a new tower in that area when a new dome goes up.... hopefully to the north of the dome now.
![]()
And to put a bow on this comment: The way there ownership is structured solidifies their fan allegiance, ensures their continued existence in Green Bay, and builds consensus between their majority ownership and the fan base (which only bolsters the first two points even more).dbInSouthCity wrote:Packers finances are public because the way their ownership is structured)
It's actually very interesting how their funding/ownership is structured and could possibly be a model for us. Im happy to put my money towards the Rams. I'd be even happier to do that if I was made to believe I have "ownership" in the franchise.
The pack is a storied franchise in a city of ~100k, the smallest NFL media market. That fact doesn't get much press. Again, extremely fascinating ownership model.
- 271
Good stuff in the latest from Bernie:
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 7109d.html
The highlights, in my opinion:
* Not only did Peacock meet with Grubman (the NFL executive charged with overseeing initiatives to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles) in New York City last month, as reported by the New York Times a few days ago, but Grubman then also came to St. Louis and met with Peacock a second time last Thursday night during the Rams/Cardinals game. To me, this signals that the NFL is, in fact, taking David Peacock very seriously, and that Peacock is clearly making real progress.
* An announcement from Governor Nixon is expected within the next couple weeks meant to reassure the public that productive efforts are well underway to keep the Rams in St. Louis.
* A public unveiling of the preliminary plans for a new stadium is expected shortly after the first of the year. The timing on this is interesting to me because it sounds like it's meant to be before the Rams are to inform St. Louis that they'll be exercising the "year-to-year" provision of their lease.
* Here's where it gets really interesting (in my opinion): Not only did Peacock meet with NFL executives when he was in New York City last month, but he also met with the MLS commissioner to gauge interest in the MLS expanding to St. Louis in their new hypothetical stadium. As Bernie pointed out, the MLS prefers soccer-specific stadiums these days, but they're obviously not married to the idea, as the New England Revolution plays in Gillette Stadium (the Patriots' venue), the Seattle Sounders play in CenturyLink Field (the Seahawks venue, which is also widely considered the best gameday experience in all of Major League Soccer), and even the brand new Atlanta expansion franchise, which hasn't even played yet, will be playing in Atlanta's new retractable-roof football stadium, which hasn't even been completed yet.
All-in-all, a lot of tantalizing stuff there, especially if you're a St. Louis-area pro sports fan.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 7109d.html
The highlights, in my opinion:
* Not only did Peacock meet with Grubman (the NFL executive charged with overseeing initiatives to bring the NFL back to Los Angeles) in New York City last month, as reported by the New York Times a few days ago, but Grubman then also came to St. Louis and met with Peacock a second time last Thursday night during the Rams/Cardinals game. To me, this signals that the NFL is, in fact, taking David Peacock very seriously, and that Peacock is clearly making real progress.
* An announcement from Governor Nixon is expected within the next couple weeks meant to reassure the public that productive efforts are well underway to keep the Rams in St. Louis.
* A public unveiling of the preliminary plans for a new stadium is expected shortly after the first of the year. The timing on this is interesting to me because it sounds like it's meant to be before the Rams are to inform St. Louis that they'll be exercising the "year-to-year" provision of their lease.
* Here's where it gets really interesting (in my opinion): Not only did Peacock meet with NFL executives when he was in New York City last month, but he also met with the MLS commissioner to gauge interest in the MLS expanding to St. Louis in their new hypothetical stadium. As Bernie pointed out, the MLS prefers soccer-specific stadiums these days, but they're obviously not married to the idea, as the New England Revolution plays in Gillette Stadium (the Patriots' venue), the Seattle Sounders play in CenturyLink Field (the Seahawks venue, which is also widely considered the best gameday experience in all of Major League Soccer), and even the brand new Atlanta expansion franchise, which hasn't even played yet, will be playing in Atlanta's new retractable-roof football stadium, which hasn't even been completed yet.
All-in-all, a lot of tantalizing stuff there, especially if you're a St. Louis-area pro sports fan.
- 3,757
I know this is an old article and this story has been discredited by some, but I still believe this has some steam. The Broncos may or may not have a viable ownership option in the Bowlen family. If no heir steps up to take over, the family will be forced to sell. Tell me Stan wouldn't rather buy the Broncos and keep his empire intact. This article from Sept. 2014, states that it will be more clear in 2 years. I think if Stan has a shot at buying the Broncos, he'd sell the Rams and jump at the chance. Why wouldn't he, if he cannot get to LA via league bylaws. I think this little x-factor is looming out there and could play into this story. I know it has been mentioned many times, but lately, skeptics have shot this down. I wouldn't just yet. If Bowlen cannot find someone to hand the team over to, in the family, it will be sold. Elway will be the main thorn in Stan's side, but Stan has WAY more money to throw at the family. That is assuming they do not attempt to buy the team together. Elway and Stan have been partners before. Stan likes to own 100% but maybe he makes an exception with Elway. Who knows.
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26 ... -ownership
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26 ... -ownership
- 8,155
cool photo... took a moment to figure out what was being shown. Over at the transit photo thread a few of us had a good time tracking down for Wabash where this 1961 photo was taken...matguy70 wrote:I don't know if many remember or were old enough to see the old Sheraton Convention Center tower which was demolished to make way for the dome in 1992. I always liked the old Sheraton Tower - it was 660 rooms and really big. Wouldn't mind seeing a new tower in that area when a new dome goes up.... hopefully to the north of the dome now.
turns out this is where the Dome now is and apparently where the Sheraton stood before that. Here is a photo of the same street in 1953...
I suppose the area was cleared for the Convetion Center in the late 60s or so but I don't really know.... do you have any idea when the Sheraton was built/opened?
The Sheraton opened in 1977, same as the Convention Center. The hotel was torn down in 1992. Here's an interesting history on the project from Urban Review STL:
http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2009/06/s ... on-center/
http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2009/06/s ... on-center/
- 8,155
^ thanks. I'm really intrigued by the changes in this part of downtown and what it must have been back in the time when there was a regular street grid like in the '53 photo.... I suppose back then Franklin had a straight approach to the Veterans Bridge (now MLK) but at some point the elevated lanes came in as the 3rd Street Expressway gave way to I-70. And I wonder how far north past Franklin multi-level structures went... what kind of structures aligned Cole and Biddle, etc.?
I think Wabash should give us an historical image report.
I think Wabash should give us an historical image report.
- 3,235
And of course the Bring Back the Rams guys cr*p all over the story as a complete rumor.
- 284
As i continue to state other wise Rams are staying here in St.Louis. If L.A. was such the hot market that its perceived to be there would have already been either expansion or relocated team there. I don't care about the bring back L.A. Rams crap you didn't support the team then you won't support the team now. Again if any team is moving it be Raiders. Then again i could completely fall on my head once Rams say they are leaving. I would love to see a NFL/Soccer stadium go up. St.Louis is very deserving of a MLS team and is probably the most under appreciated soccer city in this country.
- 271
Once again, Bernie's latest is chock-full of tidbits on the stadium efforts:
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... baece.html
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... baece.html
Bernie Miklasz wrote:I can add something else: the proposed stadium will be one part of a major development of the northern St. Louis riverfront, which is loaded with mostly unoccupied buildings.
While Nixon declined to confirm those details, he shared his primary objectives in this stadium drive.
Nixon referred to them as “the core principles,” that must be fulfilled for the project to go forward. Here are Nixon’s six priorities, presented verbatim. And I included my comments where appropriate.
1. “The project’s got to be sited on land that will result in the eradication of existing blight as well as establish a location that wouldn’t be developed in the foreseeable future but for the stadium project,” Nixon said.
Comment: This sure sounds like a description of the northern riverfront.
2. “The tract needs to be certified, as required in an environmental cleanup,” Nixon said. “In order to get this thing done that’s important.”
3. “The construction phase is going to have to provide jobs that pay competitive wages, and we’re going to try and source as many materials here to get the major economic benefit,” Nixon said.
4. “The project has to also incorporate a plan to maximize the ongoing economic value of the current dome, so that we can continue to show a benefit, long range.”
Comment: Sources familiar with Nixon’s thinking said the goal is to “repurpose” the Edward Jones Dome to make it a more viable lucrative facility for hosting conventions and other major events.
5. “The stadium will be held as a public asset, not as a private asset,” Nixon said. “So we’ll have more flexibility.”
Comment: In other words, Kroenke and the Rams won’t own the stadium.
6. “There’s going to be no new tax burden on taxpayers in the local region or the state of Missouri,” Nixon said. “And that includes no proposals submitted to the voters for the purpose of increasing taxes for this.”
Comment: That’s a crucial aspect to this attempted project. But without new taxes, where’s the funding source? The parameters presumably will be included in the Peacock-Blitz report. According to sources familiar with the basic plan, much of the funding will come from the existing bonds that are paying off the Edward Jones Dome.
The bonds are due to run out in 2021, and apparently an attempt will be made to refinance and extend the bonds and roll them over to a new stadium/riverfront development. Moreover, the NFL and the Rams would contribute as much as $400 million to $450 million (combined) to the project. That’s in accordance with the NFL’s “G-4” stadium fund.
“That’s the frame of where we are,” Nixon said of the core principles. “How does that frame play out? That’s what Dave and Bob are working on, to try and put together a proposal for me to look at.”
Nixon reiterated that plan must be big on development. He isn’t interested in a stadium-only concept. And he is confident that Peacock and Blitz will present something more sweeping and substantial in scope.
“We’re working with the right people to make sure that there’s not only a benefit to sports fans, but much more importantly an economic benefit to the region, both in the short run and long run,” Nixon said. “And this assists in the continued transformation of the area downtown. And continues to add value to the region and our state.
Loving the momentum here. The only thing that gives me pause about the core principles is the lack of team ownership of the venue. That seems anti-Kroenke-ish.....hopefully there is still some opportunity for the team to get parking revenue and some of the development could be Stan's to garner.
Did anyone notice the number of empty seats at Santa Clara for last night's 49ers/Chargers game? Interesting.
Jay Glazer still isn't giving up on the Rams to Los Angeles.
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/st-l ... ers-122114
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/st-l ... ers-122114
- 9,541
He also reported 2 weeks ago that the Rams were moving this year...dweebe wrote:Jay Glazer still isn't giving up on the Rams to Los Angeles.
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/st-l ... ers-122114
There was another report from a LA paper- that Chargers and Raiders were clear cut favorites to move to a joint stadium next year
- 3,757
I am really starting to think that the Rams might be putting out 'information' to stir the pot and get a fire lit under the rears, of STL and the regions politicians. That would be the positive way to look at the recent developments, that assure us, that no team will be in LA in 2015. However, I've always felt that this would be a slow process. It is all going to come down to whether or not STL can get a stadium built here. I think the same rumors will start flying again in 2015-2016 and beyond, until we either get a new stadium or a team achieves a move to LA. I think 2015 will be a HUGE year for not only STL, but the process for a team moving to LA. I just hope Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz can get this done. I like what I've been hearing, but in the end, we know how dream projects always stall or never happen here in STL. I feel better than I did before, but that is not saying much. I think Stan wants out, but knows his only way out would be if STL and Peacock fail to get a stadium deal done. We are going to hear rumor after rumor, so I guess we better be prepared for a wild 2015 with regards to the future of NFL football in STL.
- 8,155
Due to the marvels of the secondary ticket sales market, the familial unit went to its first Rams game yesterday. It definitely needs some freshening up -- more light and scoreboard -- but I could see how the CVB proposal would have been a sufficient improvement to the Dome and at a lower cost of a new stadium while avoiding the at times insufferable drama of what's next. On the other hand, if we simply extend our current tax-payer obligation for a brand new stadium that is part of additional development and frees up the CVB for more conventions and has a better lease, then I guess that could be the better outcome. Especially if an MLS team comes as part of the deal!
- 3,757
^ I would love for MLS to be part of this. I wonder if it is possible to design an MLS friendly NFL stadium. I would hope that MLS can work here, in an NFL stadium, competing with the Cardinals. The MLS season runs from March to October, so I'm not sure how a mediocre to bad MLS team would do here. (I'm making the assumption that our MLS will have some bad seasons). Competing with the Cards will be tough, especially in a huge NFL stadium. I'd still love to see an MLS specific venue. However, if it takes playing in an NFL venue, to get a team here, I welcome that. A St. Louis Gunners (Arsenal affiliated) team would be the best option, assuming Stan stays here. I am not sure how MLS would feel about that. I would love to see an MLS specific venue some day, on the south riverfront.
I think support of FCSTL will be important in showing Garber we in STL are for real, as an MLS city. I think MLS wants to be here, but it has to be under the right circumstances.
I think support of FCSTL will be important in showing Garber we in STL are for real, as an MLS city. I think MLS wants to be here, but it has to be under the right circumstances.
For what its worth, the Rams make it official.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1419259426
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1419259426
- 8,155
My reliable sources state that with the team's recent implosion, 49ers ownership wants to bail on the Bay Area and move to LA. Further, these informed sources confirm that the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers also continue to eye a move to LA and that the City of Angels may be hosting not one, not two, but three NFL teams! More likely, however, is the Raiders or Chargers taking over Levi's Stadium as an alternative to moving to LA. Sign up for a free trial issue of the Roger Report today!dweebe wrote:Did anyone notice the number of empty seats at Santa Clara for last night's 49ers/Chargers game? Interesting.
- 3,757
^ the 'Roger Report' may be more reliable than Jason 'I need more clicks' La Confora. 