urbanSTL

Just finished the 168 question survey from the Rams/NFL/Task Force for the new stadium...

Fox 2 confirmed last night, that the survey was put out by the NFL, not the Rams specifically. This is the same survey they did in LA. However, the survey in STL is much bigger. I believe they surveyed everybody in the Rams database. I am not a season ticket holder, but I regularly purchase tix via credit card, so I assume that is why I'm the database.

Implicit bias means you're not aware of it and it isn't intentional. I'm not saying you're racist because you don't like the NBA
only that discussing the NBA can possibly expose implicit biases. I believe it has. I believe it does. Sorry if you're offended but it's just one man's observation. I guess we can't talk about race in St. Louis in 2015. I guess we can't look at race through the lens of sport.

Can we create another thread to discuss this further? I think its pretty interesting and would be good to discuss it.

Would it be fair to assume that if you're African-American and you enjoy the NBA's style of play, that you are showing implicit bias or some form of racism?

I think both cases are valid.

Is implicit bias inherently a bad thing? I think in most ways its natural. I think humans are all a little racist. I think its completely normal for people to think primarily from their own lens whether its based on their race, gender, age, sexuality, and so on. I think its unavoidable. Of course that doesn't mean you forgive them for any biases they may have. And when you take those implicit biases and implement them in rules of sport or rule of law, that's a problem. I believe that is the case in regards to laws, especially in St. Louis.

Are any of those implicit biases affecting sports right now? NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc.?

I think to imply that because someone dislikes the NBA, they don't like African-Americans is a bit strong.

arch_genesis wrote:And music being played during games is weird to jstriebel. Nevermind vuvuzelas or bongos or any songs that are sung full-throated during soccer matches. Must be the rap music.

Yeah I'm way out of line. Anyway, this is a Rams thread sorry for being the one to bring up NBA Basketball.

Since you roped me into it, there is a large difference between songs originated by the crowd and music being forced out over the speakers during game play.

And it's not about the style of music. I don't even think teams play actual songs during the game do they? I'm talking about the very forced sound effects from the speakers. It's weird to me when that takes place while the game is being played. For me that puts up this weird wall around the game.

I very much believe race plays a role in how people perceive the NBA. I was never here to disagree with you. I was here to suggest your specific theory that people in St. Louis who like college basketball and don't like the NBA was too specific. There are many factors at play there, and I gave you some.

I gave you mine specifically. 1. I have a team to root for in college basketball. 2. I have tried to have a team to root for in the NBA, but the lack of importance I feel on most of the games make it hard for me to get into.

I'm not anti-NBA. I want an NBA team in St. Louis, although I'm not sure how support would go for it. I just presently like college basketball way more than I like NBA basketball.

We're allowed to discuss race, but it's hard to do when you imply racism that isn't there.

Even Paul Pierce wants the rim raised. . . He must be racist....

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_d ... nba,209807

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=NBA+to+raise+rim+

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=NB ... point+line+

DogtownBnR wrote:Fox 2 confirmed last night, that the survey was put out by the NFL, not the Rams specifically. This is the same survey they did in LA. However, the survey in STL is much bigger. I believe they surveyed everybody in the Rams database. I am not a season ticket holder, but I regularly purchase tix via credit card, so I assume that is why I'm the database.

I was a 19 year PSL and season ticket holder, and I'm in the Rams database, but I have not seen the survey yet. Yes, I looked in my SPAM folder. I didn't renew last year because I bought tickets from my friends who have 4 PSLs. (The Rams never could relocate all 6 of our PSLs together.) On one of the Rams forums, RamsonDemand, only 3 people got the survey. One lives in North Carolina and bought one ticket through the box office, one lives in LA, and one bought one ticket in 2003. So I'm not sure why they would leave out folks like me who have been supportive of a new stadium outdoors.

^Maybe they took a random sample from their database. I'm not sure on that one...

I love Donnybrook, but they have a long history or rooting for St. Louis to fail. I love McClellan, but he thinks he knows more than engineers -- he declared that light rail would fail years ago when it was introduced because people had to walk over the tracks, unlike New York or Washington. And there were no turnstiles. He also said the Highway 40 shutdown for improvements would be a metro-wide calamity. It was not. After the last Donnybrook show during the call-in, a caller calculated that a billion dollar stadium would cost taxpayers $20M per year in interest, not $12M, implying Peacock is a liar. The caller neglected to account for NFL money, expected owner money, PSL money, tax credits, etc. Bill and Wendy just let that stand as truth. Another caller declared that everyone who was around in 1993 knows that new site will flood. It did not in 1993 and the stadium will be behind the flood wall. Bill and Wendy agreed with the caller -- not engineers.

So Donnybrook panelists gets it wrong more than they get it right when they bet against our city. I'm not sure Ray is that much smarter than Dave Peacock. Ray will be around to remind everyone that he predicted failure if the Rams leave, but those guys don't bring up their own past failed predictions. They just like to point out how correct they were when anything in St. Louis fails. If the Donnybrook team was in charge, we'd have no light rail, no new Busch stadium, not Rams, no improved I-64, no infrastructure improvements whatsoever as far as I can tell. And Bill likes the Cubs over his hometown Cardinals. What does that say? Its a lot easier to just laugh at St. Louis for thinking we could ever be like, say, Indianapolis or Minneapolis.

Bernie really breaks down Stan's options very well in this article. I would love to see where all of this is in 10 years. I guess I'm just impatient....

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 73f40.html

I like the 3rd option best. I love the idea of him selling to a local owner and buying the Broncos. Best of both worlds. We get a new venue, get to keep the Rams and get rid of Stan. Best case for STL!

roger wyoming II wrote:Ray Hartmann had a good piece a few weeks ago on how we shouldn't expect a new stadium anytime soon if the Rams stay.

http://www.stlmag.com/news/stan-kroenke ... n-options/

Unless there are major concessions given to him to make for yet another crappy lease deal for the city, there really is no incentive for him to fork over his own $$ for a new stadium when he is getting such a favorable deal at the Dome for another ten years. A new stadium might make for a better gameday experience, but it necessarily wont be a better economic experience for Kroenke.

More and better premium seating will bring in more money. And a new stadium in this market (meaning this isn't always true, but this is a strong sports market) will bring some extra fans and excitement that might not have already been there (pending the on-field product).

And given that we're currently projecting a 2019 opening (I think), that's only about 6 years cut off the current lease.

Factor in that in this scenario the LA market leverage would be gone, and Stan may not have the leverage to wait for something about 5 years. This climate is his best opportunity to get something in St. Louis. Obviously he's going to have to be forced to come back to St. Louis, but if he is, I think he'll take this rather than waiting.

Keep in mind they could also negotiate the lease where Kroenke would be guaranteed the same revenue over the first 6 years of the lease as he would get if he just played in the Dome. Or something like that.

But I see very little chance a new stadium won't end up bringing in more money for Kroenke regardless of the lease.

Has anyone heard a breakdown of what Kroenke is contributing to his Inglewood stadium versus his partners? I was of the understanding that he was building the stadium himself and the partners were in on the rest of the development of the 'City of Champions'. If that is the case, he will spend more than double to build in LA, pay a relocation fee, pay to rebrand the team, pay higher taxes, higher salaries to executives, and he's already out close to $100 million for the land in Inglewood. I'm sure he will make a ton of money and the franchise value will increase significantly. However, that would only come into play if he sells. This deal will make him a lot of money, but staying in STL and putting a winner on the field seems to be the better investment. The Rams were a very valuable franchise when they were winning and had a new stadium. That will be the case if he achieves both here. I just don't see LA being as lucrative as it is being portrayed, assuming he is not selling. LA is known to be a fickle market, with lots of transplants and lots of other things to do. If Kroenke moves there and puts a mediocre product on the field, interest will wane when the new toy's shine wears off. I'd guess at that point, the value of the LA franchise will go down, especially If there is another team in LA that is successful.

^I think the STL market is a great market for the NFL. We have been beat down for so long, with bad football, terrible management and terrible game-day experience. I think if you put a competitive product on the field, there is no reason the NFL should fail in a market approaching 3 million people. The NFL product is too popular. It think anyone would agree. All you have to do here is look back to the Greatest Show days.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I agree a new stadium would bring in more revenue for a team owner but it also would exponentially increase expenses... having to contribute several hundred million $$ to a stadium will have a serious impact on franchise value and the bottom line.

The St. Louis plan will ask about $250-350 million from Kroenke. Another $200 would come from the NFL via a very manageable and deferred loan (the G4 program).

That's not all that excessive considering what he's willing to spend in LA and what he spends annually on salary (well north of $100 million).

The stadium is going to raise the franchise value by significantly more than that, and I'm certain he'll still negotiate a solid lease. Even if St. Louis is successful in not being totally walked over, the Rams will benefit in a new lease.

I'm not advocating for the stadium or saying it's the absolute best option financially for Kroenke. But I have zero doubts it will still be a significant gain for him.

Maybe I'm confused about what you're saying. I thought you were simply considering Hartmann's stance that Kroenke might not want to take a new deal in St. Louis even if the league kept him out of LA. That I think would prove incorrect.

If you're talking about a new franchise opportunity, then everything is out the window. While there are ways it happens, I think the odds go down significantly that St. Louis gets a team in the next decade plus if the Rams leave.

I have no idea what Kroenke would do if LA doesn't work out

He would just stay in St. Louis.

That's the whole thing about this stadium situation. Kroenke wins no matter what the outcome. There's no risk.

I don't know whether he really wants to be in LA or if for him its just a matter of why not try. I think its more of the latter. Its a good opportunity to make money, so why not go for it. I think the "Kroenke's desire to be in LA" thing is really overblown. I don't think that Kroenke is dead set on going to LA no matter what the costs. This idea that he is willing to burn all bridges to get to LA is crazy in my opinion. Most people don't act that way Maybe I'm too much of an idealist.

LA is a good opportunity. If any of us had that chance (owning an NFL franchise in the second largest US market), wouldn't we be dumb not to try it? Its common sense. And if that doesn't work out, OK, I may get a new stadium back in Missouri and the franchise value still increases. And if that doesn't work out, OK, I still own an NFL franchise that makes a good deal of money with a year to year lease.

I like Ray Hartman, but I don't think his views on Kroenke's commitment to getting in LA is that as concrete as Ray depicts it. Its just the right move for someone who likes to make money.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I have no idea what Kroenke would do if LA doesn't work out but Hartmann raises two issues: the first is more of an emotional one of a questionable desire of staying in the town you wanted to leave if the LA plans are rejected; the second one was more financial in that he might find it financial-wise better to just go year-to-year as long as he can (and perhaps until he unloads the team or moves them to another possible location such as London).

What I do agree with Hartmann on is that staying in Saint Louis doesn't appear to be Kroenke's preferred plan and that the Peacock plan of a publicly-owned new outdoor riverfront stadium that requires Kroenke to put in a half billion or so isn't necessarily something we can count on as happening if he doesn't move to LA. If he does stay, we may see an entirely different counter-proposal.

That all makes sense, but I don't think the money Kroenke will be asked to contribute will be that big of a hang up for him. When you factor in the NFL loans, his personal investment will be $350 million or south. Perhaps significantly south. The value of the franchise will probably increase between that amount and double that amount.

It's also important to consider that if the NFL forces Kroenke to stay in St. Louis, it will be because there are hundreds of millions of dollars in public subsidies on the table. They're not going to push the Rams back to St. Louis without a done deal in St. Louis. Otherwise they won't have actually solved the stadium issue, and they'll no longer have leverage with which to solve it.

If the Rams stay in St. Louis, the stadium plan, or some near modification of it, will be what gets built. I'm pretty comfortable saying that.

If the Rams are to stay, but Kroenke wants out so as not to spend his own money, I'm comfortable the succession plan will all be decided at that point as well. I just do not see the NFL pushing the Rams back to St. Louis without the stadium deal being done.

I totally get what you're saying, but ultimately I just don't see it changing anything.