urbanSTL

^I don't think you can assume it won't be "state-of-the-art".

Forbes puts a lot of value on stadiums regardless of what entity owns them. With the new stadium (and subsequent spike in attendance) I believe the Rams value will immediately jump at least $300M putting them squarely in the 1.2B to 1.3B range.

That's nearly an immediate return on the money Kroenke would put in. The team's value would have to jump to 3Billion+ to have that kind of payback period in LA.

You seem to be assuming that Kroenke's not going to make a ton more off of a new stadium. I think he will. That's why the NFL wants new stadiums. I promise you they don't actually care whether it's shiny. They don't care whether the fans think it's kind of dim. They want new stadiums that bring along with them enhanced revenue streams.

I'm not expert enough to know what all those are and how much they'll bring, but if they didn't exist, the NFL wouldn't be all that concerned about getting them.

A better or lease or not, Kroenke stands to gain a lot from the new building.

The value of the franchise will go up if the team starts winning again and attracts fans, advertising, endorsements, etc. Just like the Cardinals and Blues. Look at Seattle. They were terrible at one time and tried to move to LA themselves. But once they started winning, it's hard to imagine a team worth more than that one.

With regard to Kroenke refusing to supply his $250M portion, I assume Grubman of the NFL would have relayed that info to Peacock by now so he would stop wasting his time. But he obviously hasn't done that. So I think that means we can legitimately expect the owner to contribute at least that much, just as other owners have contributed. If he won't contribute, then that is just proof to the NFL that he NEVER intended to work for local solution, as we all know. And they should make him stay and just play in the dome.

We pretty much knew Kroenke's master plan was to get out of the lease when he demanded a $700 million upgrade to the dome to stay just 10 years, all at taxpayer expense. No NFL city anywhere has ever voted to give its NFL owner over $400 million in public money, as far as I know, and Kroenke picked that very high delta above that ($700M) just to make sure St. Louis would not become the first, and he could therefore get out of the lease and move the team.

I herd from shady Jacks face book they and none of the other land owners had not been approach and their land being bought for the stadium and herd nothing about their land being bought as of yet.

I think the Rams actually being a good team might bring in revenue. The Packers have no trouble filling up their outdoor stadium during ridiculously cold weather.

Ebsy wrote:I think the Rams actually being a good team might bring in revenue. The Packers have no trouble filling up their outdoor stadium during ridiculously cold weather.

The same Packers who have been in Green Bay for more than 50 years? The same Packers who are owned by the public? Of course they have no trouble filling up their stadium.

^ Not to mention their 30 year waiting list for season tix. They put their infants on the list, with the hopes of getting season tickets in their 30s. It is insane up there. I was up there earlier this winter for work. I recall a Packers fan entering a bar I had lunch at. He sat on the barstool, took off his ultra-thick Packers coat, his Packers skull cap, his Packers gloves, his Packer under-layer jacket, was wearing a Packers hoodie under that, then after taking off the skull cap, put on a Packers baseball hat. He took off the Monday I was there because he went to the game the day before. That is the kind of committed fans you get with 50 + years of tradition. That is why I want to keep the Rams logo and name. After losing the Big Red & possibly the Rams, it will be tough to feel a connection to any new team that may come, especially if the team is one that has tradition in another market like the Raiders. If that scenario plays out, the team needs to be rebranded & renamed, no doubt.

On another note, I saw on the news that 187K people were polled with the survey the NFL sent out. I believe only 2000 people were polled in LA. I totally forgot to mention the fact that if Kroenke moves, the Rams name should stay in STL. I should have put that in the essay part of the survey. Totally forgot. . .

The Inglewood news is largely irrelevant despite all the play it's getting this morning. For one thing, it was expected.

For another, they've said they're targeting a December start date on construction. The Carson plan will have long since gotten the same kind of approval. (They're saying June at the latest). Both plan will be shovel ready.

Other factors will decide who goes where, not which stadium plan is ready first. I though Kroenke might rush it, but we now know that's not coming until December, which will be after this has all been decided.

Peacock statement about the vote last night- no effect on our effort- moving forward 100%, most progress to share in coming weeks.

^ I have heard every "expert" interviewed on the topic, say NO. The NFL is not eyeing expansion, nor is it on their radar. Many of the interviews done on local radio and TV, regarding the Rams potential move, included a mention of expansion and the interviewee shooting down the possibility. The NFL has the financial pie cut the way they want right now. Also, the divisions and schedules are set up how they want. I think expansion is a long way away, if it even happens. If we are without a team, I'd fear Goodell's London obsession could kill us. Not to mention, if the Rams move, Raiders and Chargers stay they'd put another team in LA. Toronto and San Antonio (a faster growing city, albeit, close to Dallas) are real threats. I think the key (nothing new) is our stadium deal. It MUST get done or we will be off the NFL's radar. That simple. I think they'd like to keep us if we can get this deal done. The 21st biggest media market is nothing to write off, in a league of 32 teams.

I sent a note to the Rams asking why I didn't receive a survey, since I was a 19-year charter PSL holder. They replied that they have nothing to do with the survey, and they supplied the names in their database to CSL. So they don't know why I didn't get the survey and forwarded my note to CSL.

The Rams said I should be confident in the results since CSL has a good reputation. I replied that I hope they understand that I am not impressed a customer survey that leaves out its best customers.

To me, this just adds suspicion that somebody wants to skew the results away from anyone advocating for the new stadium. Probably not, but how many other former PSL buyers were left out just like me, just through screw-up if nothing sinister.

Everybody has told me that repeatedly. Nope. Nothing there but the other junk you mentioned. I wonder how that skews the results when they conclude half the people they sent the survey to didn't bother to respond. But it is because they configured the emails to go to everyone's spam folder. I am not too impressed with CSL.

If they're worth their salt, that can't include no responses in the data. You can't assume someone got the survey unless they open it.

I'm more inclined to believe they sent this to only a random sampling (albeit a very big one) OR something just went wrong in the delivery and it didn't reach you. I'm dubious of conspiracies, although I suppose nothing would surprise me.

D

I don't blame you for being annoyed, but I'm sure plenty of people who share your views DID get them. I think it's good if they get a sampling of all view point.

A commenter to this piece in the LA times had the same problem as me. Charter PSL holder who did not get the survey.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... l=comments

This guy is going to be a thorn in Peacock's side, I think....

Missouri state Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, is leading an effort to require a legislative or statewide vote before state bonds can be issued for the St. Louis stadium. He said late last week that the Raiders' and Chargers’ threat to build their Carson stadium requires Missourians “to be even more careful about whether or not we throw a couple hundred million dollars of incentives if he has nowhere to go anyway.”

Of course he is from the western side of the state.

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/pea ... es-stadium

DogtownBnR wrote:This guy is going to be a thorn in Peacock's side, I think....

Missouri state Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, is leading an effort to require a legislative or statewide vote before state bonds can be issued for the St. Louis stadium. He said late last week that the Raiders' and Chargers’ threat to build their Carson stadium requires Missourians “to be even more careful about whether or not we throw a couple hundred million dollars of incentives if he has nowhere to go anyway.”

Of course he is from the western side of the state.

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/pea ... es-stadium

I wouldn't be shocked at all if a KC area politician lead an effort to have one of the B2 bombers from Whitman drop a few nukes on St. Louis.