maybe they dont care about current season ticket holders as they are expecting many of those to be back on board in the new stadium?
Outside of the great Gary Kreie shutout, every season ticket holder I know got a survey.dbInSouthCity wrote:maybe they dont care about current season ticket holders as they are expecting many of those to be back on board in the new stadium?
- 9,568
I think everyone thats ever bought a ticket for anything at the Dome (Rams, that soccer game, NCAA events, concerts ect) and used their email address got one...of course except Gary.
- 8,155
LA Times takes a look at the competing economics of the LA versus Saint Louis stadium plans....
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s ... tml#page=1
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s ... tml#page=1
- 3,433
After a few email exchanges with the Rams, I finally got the survey email. The Rams said they sent the names of everyone who reached out to them complaining that they didn't get the survey and sent the emails to CSL. They didn't say how many that was, but you'd think they'd try to track down whatever screw-up caused these folks to not get it in the first place so they'd know how many more were left out.dbInSouthCity wrote:I think everyone thats ever bought a ticket for anything at the Dome (Rams, that soccer game, NCAA events, concerts ect) and used their email address got one...of course except Gary.
Odd that they had to do this since they said I am in their database. The only thing I can guess is they wrote off folks like me who had a charter PSL for 19 years, but dropped it last year to sit with friends who have 4 Club PSLs. The Rams could never relocate all of our 6 seats together in the lower bowl. I guess someone decided everyone who bought PSLs the first time are not stupid enough to ever do that again, so why send them a survey. They don't know me as well as my wife does I guess. I don't think I heard from anyone who dropped their PSL, or charter PSL, who got the survey, without begging for it. Whatever.
- 1,864
Keep in mind that there are probably restrictions on people who hit "unsubscribe" at some point too. They most likely suppressed out individuals who are on certain "do not contact" lists or who had ever unsubscribed from a Rams email before.
gary kreie wrote:After a few email exchanges with the Rams, I finally got the survey email. The Rams said they sent the names of everyone who reached out to them complaining that they didn't get the survey and sent the emails to CSL. They didn't say how many that was, but you'd think they'd try to track down whatever screw-up caused these folks to not get it in the first place so they'd know how many more were left out.dbInSouthCity wrote:I think everyone thats ever bought a ticket for anything at the Dome (Rams, that soccer game, NCAA events, concerts ect) and used their email address got one...of course except Gary.
Odd that they had to do this since they said I am in their database. The only thing I can guess is they wrote off folks like me who had a charter PSL for 19 years, but dropped it last year to sit with friends who have 4 Club PSLs. The Rams could never relocate all of our 6 seats together in the lower bowl. I guess someone decided everyone who bought PSLs the first time are not stupid enough to ever do that again, so why send them a survey. They don't know me as well as my wife does I guess. I don't think I heard from anyone who dropped their PSL, or charter PSL, who got the survey, without begging for it. Whatever.
- 3,767
Dweebe wrote:
Hilarious, but true. The KC haters do not want to see us get anything nice. Too bad that the big cities do not work together to overrule the rural types in Jeff City. Guess it's every district for themselves!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.
John Clayton is predicting a Rams & Chargers move to LA..... for what it's worth....
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... s-clayton/
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... s-clayton/
- 9,568
2 weeks ago he predicted the Charges and Raiders, 2 weeks before that just the Charges and 2 weeks before that just the Rams...
the idea that NFL would just leave the Raiders to figure out their issue in Oakland while letting someone take the LA market is just crazy
sports reporter from LA Daily News is saying no way NFL lets a team from another state move to Cali while 2 teams in cali need stadiums and the Rams have a viable plan in St.Louis for a new stadium
the idea that NFL would just leave the Raiders to figure out their issue in Oakland while letting someone take the LA market is just crazy
sports reporter from LA Daily News is saying no way NFL lets a team from another state move to Cali while 2 teams in cali need stadiums and the Rams have a viable plan in St.Louis for a new stadium
DogtownBnR wrote:This guy is going to be a thorn in Peacock's side, I think....
Of course he is from the western side of the state.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.”
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/pea ... es-stadium
he was on with Frank on CBS920 and pretty much said that with most of the leadership in both chambers being St.Louis area people they may not take up his bill and even if they did the Gov could veto it and that would be it....he didnt seem confident at all that his bill would become law at all..
Interesting numbers to think about when anyone from LA throws out the "St. Louis fans don't support football!" insult.
Los Angeles Rams
Year Record Avg Att
1984 (10-6) 54,455 (playoffs)
1985 (11-5) 56,242 (playoffs)
1986 (10-6) 59,285 (playoffs)
1987 (6-9) 47,356
1988 (10-6) 54,469 (playoffs)
1989 (11-5) 58,846 (playoffs)
1990 (5-11) 59,920
1991 (3-13) 51,586
1992 (6-10) 47,811
1993 (5-11) 45,401
1994 (4-12) 43,312
10 Yr Avg 52,608
St. Louis Rams
Year Record Avg Att
2004 (8-8) 66,035
2005 (6-10) 65,585
2006 (8-8) 65,326
2007 (3-13) 64,294
2008 (2-14) 59,980
2009 (1-15) 55,237
2010 (7-9) 52,922
2011 (2-14) 56,394
2012 (7-8-1) 56,703
2013 (7-9) 56,957
2014 (6-10) 57,018
10 Yr Avg 59,677
Los Angeles Rams
Year Record Avg Att
1984 (10-6) 54,455 (playoffs)
1985 (11-5) 56,242 (playoffs)
1986 (10-6) 59,285 (playoffs)
1987 (6-9) 47,356
1988 (10-6) 54,469 (playoffs)
1989 (11-5) 58,846 (playoffs)
1990 (5-11) 59,920
1991 (3-13) 51,586
1992 (6-10) 47,811
1993 (5-11) 45,401
1994 (4-12) 43,312
10 Yr Avg 52,608
St. Louis Rams
Year Record Avg Att
2004 (8-8) 66,035
2005 (6-10) 65,585
2006 (8-8) 65,326
2007 (3-13) 64,294
2008 (2-14) 59,980
2009 (1-15) 55,237
2010 (7-9) 52,922
2011 (2-14) 56,394
2012 (7-8-1) 56,703
2013 (7-9) 56,957
2014 (6-10) 57,018
10 Yr Avg 59,677
Grubman back in town today per the Fastlane to meet with the task force. I keep hearing that more good news is coming in the next 1-2 weeks along the stadium front.
Nice listen of Grubman with Mike Florio recently also. He references STL's real progress and communication between him, the Rams, and STL regarding the stadium.
http://www.rams-news.com/eric-grubman-r ... 016-video/
Nice listen of Grubman with Mike Florio recently also. He references STL's real progress and communication between him, the Rams, and STL regarding the stadium.
http://www.rams-news.com/eric-grubman-r ... 016-video/
- 8,155
From everything I've seen, LA observers had seemed to be in pretty universal agreement that the Kroenke plan seemed to be the most real plan to come to the city (and the Chargers/Raiders is kind of a joke) but then there is this piece today that thinks its just more of the same to get Saint Louis taxpayers to pony up.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... tml#page=1
One thing though that he doesn't account for is that the Saint Louis plan would require a substantial outlay of its own; yes, LA would be a much greater investment and more risk, but (as the other LA Times article I posted said) many think it would provide more reward. I just don't see this as a ploy but as a real attempt; he may in the end find the economics just won't work, but I think he desires the limelight of LA if at all possible.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... tml#page=1
One thing though that he doesn't account for is that the Saint Louis plan would require a substantial outlay of its own; yes, LA would be a much greater investment and more risk, but (as the other LA Times article I posted said) many think it would provide more reward. I just don't see this as a ploy but as a real attempt; he may in the end find the economics just won't work, but I think he desires the limelight of LA if at all possible.
- 3,433
I wonder what Kroenke would charge Inglewoodies for PSLs. Probably about $10,000 average per seat, given the wealth and excitement level out there, no matter how bad the team was for the last 10 years. And that just pays for $800M. He will probably look for ways to get locals to pay for the other one billion on top of that.
^And that $1.86 billion price tag does not include the relocation fees that could range anywhere between $200 million and $1 billion.
This would be a VERY expensive move for Kroenke. I fully believe he's ready to do it, and I'm certain someone of his business acumen is extremely confident in the returns he'll see. But this is a big money gamble. He'll owe lots of money before seeing any benefit.
This would be a VERY expensive move for Kroenke. I fully believe he's ready to do it, and I'm certain someone of his business acumen is extremely confident in the returns he'll see. But this is a big money gamble. He'll owe lots of money before seeing any benefit.
- 3,433
I don't think anyone disagrees that the money is there in LA and Kroenke has the money, power, and desire to work to make it an option. The other owners, however, are going to have to be ok with allowing him to do so, even in the face of a real new stadium deal across the highway from the Rams current one.
The more I think about this whole thing, I wonder if the other owners really don't like what Stan brings to the table as an NFL owner. If indeed, he has made it clear that his sole purpose in owning this team is to reap personal financial gain, then that is really an insult to the other owners. Other guys want just as much wealth, however, make it fairly clear on some level that they enjoy owning the "-Fill in city of choice here- -Fill in NFL franchise here-" and not just "Fill in NFL franchise here." Stan's cold moves have basically made a fool of other NFL owners' loyalty to home markets. LA sat open for 20 years, the whole time any owner in the league could have been just as calculating and coy with their cities to get more money, and many did to a degree. However, now if Stan is able to 1) reap the financial benefits that came from moving from LA to STL originally (and despite the fact that the franchise is least valuable, he is still making a lot of money off of the Rams), and 2) make another killing over the long haul in returning to the same market he helped leave, then a new, unfortunate precedent becomes set for what it means to be an NFL owner...one that doesn't give much credit to a guy for being loyal, or "honorable" as a certain owner once stated in 2010.
I'm not saying that they won't let him do it, or he won't just do it himself, especially if we drop the ball on the new stadium but if protecting 'The Shield' means anything to these clowns, I don't think it will be as easy for Stan to ship them out. At this point, they'll have to answer to Peacock as well if he holds up his end of the bargain. Like Bernie wrote a few weeks ago, the NFL will encourage him to work, work, work, then say nevermind? Grubman's either addicted to toasted ravioli, or Peacock is doing something right to get him in town this many times.
The more I think about this whole thing, I wonder if the other owners really don't like what Stan brings to the table as an NFL owner. If indeed, he has made it clear that his sole purpose in owning this team is to reap personal financial gain, then that is really an insult to the other owners. Other guys want just as much wealth, however, make it fairly clear on some level that they enjoy owning the "-Fill in city of choice here- -Fill in NFL franchise here-" and not just "Fill in NFL franchise here." Stan's cold moves have basically made a fool of other NFL owners' loyalty to home markets. LA sat open for 20 years, the whole time any owner in the league could have been just as calculating and coy with their cities to get more money, and many did to a degree. However, now if Stan is able to 1) reap the financial benefits that came from moving from LA to STL originally (and despite the fact that the franchise is least valuable, he is still making a lot of money off of the Rams), and 2) make another killing over the long haul in returning to the same market he helped leave, then a new, unfortunate precedent becomes set for what it means to be an NFL owner...one that doesn't give much credit to a guy for being loyal, or "honorable" as a certain owner once stated in 2010.
I'm not saying that they won't let him do it, or he won't just do it himself, especially if we drop the ball on the new stadium but if protecting 'The Shield' means anything to these clowns, I don't think it will be as easy for Stan to ship them out. At this point, they'll have to answer to Peacock as well if he holds up his end of the bargain. Like Bernie wrote a few weeks ago, the NFL will encourage him to work, work, work, then say nevermind? Grubman's either addicted to toasted ravioli, or Peacock is doing something right to get him in town this many times.
- 3,433
I hope you are correct. I don't know if the other owners give a hoot about St Louis fans, especially if Kroenke convinces them St Louis is a small city of 300K and shrinking, as Jacksonville did 20 years ago when they got our expansion team. Hopefully Dave can show that we are in the middle of NFL metros, with lots of fans and money just waiting to explode again once the team wins or at least creates a star football player. I fear they will credit Kroenke with finally breaking the LA piggy bank open and will reward him with a move.
At this point, I think it really comes down to Stan K finding a place to play for a of couple of years in LA while his new Inglewood is getting built if he truly wants to be there. Yes, NFL will make a fuss and maybe extort some dollars out of Stan K for an after the move relocation fee as part of a litigation settlement. How a Stan K plays out is that the NFL owners put on a fuss when the moving vans show up, NFL threatens litigation and Stan K pays something.
The biggest fear I have for St. Louis sake is that the other owners will not support an expansion team(s) for the simple fact that the respective slice for each owner of the TV revenue gets smaller. Another way to put it, they might be more loyal to their own markets but certainly more loyal to their bank accounts than to a St. Louis market
The biggest fear I have for St. Louis sake is that the other owners will not support an expansion team(s) for the simple fact that the respective slice for each owner of the TV revenue gets smaller. Another way to put it, they might be more loyal to their own markets but certainly more loyal to their bank accounts than to a St. Louis market
^ They'll play in the Rose Bowl. I don't think there's any doubt about that part.
I think what this comes down to is St. Louis vs. San Diego. If the St. Louis stadium gets shovel ready, San Diego will need an equally ready plan. Well actually, they might not because Spanos is dedicated to San Diego. But they definitely need a plan he believes will happen, and not just a hypothetical.
If San Diego doesn't have a good plan, and St. Louis' is ready to go, then I think St. Louis winds up with a football team. If either of those things change, we're out one.
And I agree, there's no reason to count on an expansion franchise. If the Chargers, Raiders, Rams, and LA all find their solutions and one of them isn't playing in St. Louis when this little ordeal is done—then St. Louis probably isn't going to have a football team for quite a while.
That doesn't really bother me, though.
I think what this comes down to is St. Louis vs. San Diego. If the St. Louis stadium gets shovel ready, San Diego will need an equally ready plan. Well actually, they might not because Spanos is dedicated to San Diego. But they definitely need a plan he believes will happen, and not just a hypothetical.
If San Diego doesn't have a good plan, and St. Louis' is ready to go, then I think St. Louis winds up with a football team. If either of those things change, we're out one.
And I agree, there's no reason to count on an expansion franchise. If the Chargers, Raiders, Rams, and LA all find their solutions and one of them isn't playing in St. Louis when this little ordeal is done—then St. Louis probably isn't going to have a football team for quite a while.
That doesn't really bother me, though.
- 109
New renderings released of Riverfront Stadium.
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/02/st-louis- ... aguegm.com
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/02/st-louis- ... aguegm.com
- 3,767
Rams snowing the public?
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... tml#page=1
Stadium a terrorist target per AEG.....
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... tml#page=1
Stadium a terrorist target per AEG.....
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html