urbanSTL

DogtownBnR wrote:Possible snag.....?

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1426770084

that was news 5 days ago...and no snag at all, Obama's budget never gets passed...and even if this provision makes it, it wouldn't take effect until Oct 1...i think funding for the new stadium will be done by then...also if somehow this provision does make it...that means Chargers and Raiders might as well start packing their bags for Carson...since SD and Oakland would probably bond too if they ever come up with a plan. and there are ways around this provision but no time to explain or really a need since this has no effect at all at this point

I enjoyed this read. There is a lot of background on Stan. I especially liked this excerpt - "I've been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know 
I am an honorable guy."

One thing you'll notice is that every business relationship he ends; he ends in a lawsuit.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/hot ... os-angeles

its no longer a jog roger, its a race now.

While I am skeptical as to whether or not the funding is in place by Dec. 31st 2015, I always feel good knowing Dave Peacock is the man leading the charge. If anyone gets this done, it's Mr. Peacock. Guess we'll see!

roger wyoming II wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote: and even if this provision makes it, it wouldn't take effect until Oct 1...i think funding for the new stadium will be done by then

You continually amaze me with your outlook! There is no way in Hades that stadium funding will be done by Oct. 1.

There is no way in nine months any of three cities have their plans done. Also St. Louis will have a vote, the Rams will be here for it.

If the Rams wanted to move badly Kroenke could have come out like Bud Adams and said he is moving the team. When Bud Adams did it with the Oilers things got so bad Houston let him out of the lease. The Rams would already be in Inglewood if they really wanted to leave.

It is going to take two years for this to play out.

That's why I still think this is all part of his poker play to get StL to step up their game.

[quote="dweebe]

That's what is confusing. If Stan was dead set on going he'd have already announced it and just use the Rose Bowl until WalMart Field is built. Then if the NFL tried to block the move he'd just say "Anti-trust" followed by "triple damages" and pimp strut to Los Angeles. Something odd is going on here.[/quote]

To be honest the Rams could've left after arbitration, all Kroenke had to do was announce them moving LA. It would of destroyed the fan base making it easier for them to go.

Hollywood Park closed nine months after arbitration The Inglewood Stadium could be ready by early 2017. I called bull $hit back in January with the rendering of an airport hanger and pool.

All of the NFL teams have used relocation as means to extort........After Cleveland-Baltimore the owners have really been against musical chairs.

I think the funnier thing about this is how out of touch the Coastal media is about this. The ESPN guy call Kroenke " The Most Powerful Owner in Sports"


Then how come none of his U.S. teams crack top 15 in attendance and have losing records.

I don't know. The NFL could put some pretty serious penalties on Kroenke if he moved that he probably wouldn't be able to get overturned in a lawsuit. The league can't block him, but it can decentivize a move.

I think it's very possible Kroenke wants very much to move, he just doesn't believe going rogue is the financially smart way to do so. I also wonder—the more this drags on—if this isn't one of the biggest leverage ploys in the history of sports. And one that is working well at that.

jstriebel wrote:I don't know. The NFL could put some pretty serious penalties on Kroenke if he moved that he probably wouldn't be able to get overturned in a lawsuit. The league can't block him, but it can decentivize a move.

I think it's very possible Kroenke wants very much to move, he just doesn't believe going rogue is the financially smart way to do so. I also wonder—the more this drags on—if this isn't one of the biggest leverage ploys in the history of sports. And one that is working well at that.

I think the Rams chances of getting back to LA were slim anyway. Theoretically Kroenke would have known about the Carson deal if Andy Strickland and a higher up St. Louis official did. The Chargers/Raiders would probably be there anyway. Plus there are no practice facilities in LA. The Raiders have a clause in the new lease where the team can use the practice facilities for years. Al Davis did the same in the early 80s when the Raiders moved to LA; he flew the team to LA on Sundays.


I think what STL does about the stadium will not matter; San Diego and Oakland have a very,very slime chance of having new stadiums. Say what you want about the Dome, Qualcomm and O.co Coliseum are horrible.

Tour of Qualcomm Stadium 2015:
http://www.mighty1090.com/show/scott-br/

I believe AEG had one of the teams ready to sign to Farmers Field but the situation happen. That is why AEG is going so hard after both stadiums.

Could we get a local St Louis TV station to do a similar tour of the EJ Dome to show St Louisans all the problems with the. Dome?

gary kreie wrote:Could we get a local St Louis TV station to do a similar tour of the EJ Dome to show St Louisans all the problems with the. Dome?

I'm not sure I agree that (1) this should happen, or (2) that dome actually has serious problems beyond aesthetics and revenue drivers, but I'm sure you could. The sports media in this town is leading the charge for the new stadium. I'm sure they'd comply.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Ouch. The tone of this article is so matter of fact, it almost takes the emotion of a move out of the equation. I feel like our David role was just amplified to LA's Goliath. That was more along the lines of the press response I was expecting to come from Kroenke's camp. Jim Thomas just release an online article that is equally foreboding. Now it's time for stadium task force response again.

Hopefully Peacock has been practicing his sling shot skills.

This is what has bother me about this circus of a situation the most. All media except for St. Louis' has been antagonistic towards St. Louis' efforts to keep the team. St. Louis has had to deal with rumors of the Rams moving since 2010.

This year during some of the games the commentators mentioned LA, one even said he can't wait to see the Rams back which I though was very disrespectful to the fans. The media wants the NFL back in LA more than LA does. Los Angeles has not built a pro-football stadium in 90 years and wasn't planning on building one.


The riverfront stadium was mentioned in articles from Bryan Burwell in October 2014. Kroenke knowing that the riverfront proposal will be released put out the Inglewood rendering, the media was saying it was a last ditch effort??!?

On another crazy note the Inglewood stadium is an underground domed stadium with Astro Turf in sunny LA..........wow.

jstriebel wrote:Random question (because I know this isn't actually on the table, and it probably wouldn't be supported).

How much in public subsidy would it take to lure a major corporation to the North Riverfront, or even just downtown? To be fair, let's not talk about luring one from our own suburbs, but instead from outside the region?

I've seen a lot of people say that nobody is going to invest in that area any time soon. And they're right. But just—pure fantasy—what if we gave them a $450 million subsidy. Would that be enough to attract a business to relocate there?

Too bad cash incentives aren't at the top of the list of site selection factors, but the short answer is: yes, $450 million is enough to attract a business there.

To dig deeper, $450 million used to lure a business to downtown, will greatly change the dynamics of the city and even the region. For simplicity, lets say the $450 million was split evenly between workforce subsidy and real estate subsidy.

Boeing's latest subsidy from Missouri and STL county included an employee subsidy of 50% of the expected wage. For Boeing, that was $40,000 per job. With $225 million, a subsidy of $50,000 per job (assuming these jobs would pay $100,000/yr), would amount to 4,500 employees.

On the real estate side, $225 million would aide in the construction of buildings that would provide a much greater benefit than a football stadium. Again, subsidies don't work exactly like this, but with $225 million and a per sq ft construction cost of $350, a company could build 650,000 sq ft in new office space. Also, something to think about, an employee head count of 4,500 would require over 1 million sq ft in office space.

Again, subsidies don't work exactly like this, but you asked a good question and I just wanted to illustrate what I thought the magnitude $450M could have on downtown if it went to attracting a company to relocate here as opposed to building a stadium.

Not surprised that David Peacock would not be invited to an owner's meeting. After all it is an owners meeting and don't see why Stan would offer an invite

As far as Raiders/Chargers Carson proposal. Talk about another great to be a fly on the wall opportunity. Will they show up with some fire power, a real presentation and some hard financial numbers/investor information? Anything that would put their plans on as solid footing as Stan's. As for the other owner's, to me it would make sense to put my support behind the Carson plan. Solves stadium issue for two teams that are already in California both with S. Cali fan bases just as big as former LA Rams.

All three teams updated the Eric Grubman today about home markets and LA stadiums. The NFL believes in STL's stadium proposal.



Also the NFL is wary of Oakland's Coliseum City.