^ SO true! Since we ONLY love baseball, we cannot support other sports. No other sports are played here~ Everyone in LA, the biased media and the Kroenke family.
- 3,433
I think it is fair to call Shahid Khan the anti-Kroenke. We were within one day of having Khan. Peacock should have Grubmann look at what former Rams fan Khan has done in Jacksonville to show what a loyal dedicated owner looks like. So the region here has produced TWO NFL team owners. Would Khan vote for a Kronke move?DogtownBnR wrote:Interesting take from JAX. Kahn is committed to Jacksonville. He is investing in the team, the stadium and the city. While it has not translated to wins, he is the owner we could have only dreamed of. . . . .
http://www.jaguars.com/news/article-Jag ... 056fa987f0
gary kreie wrote:I think it is fair to call Shahid Khan the anti-Kroenke. We were within one day of having Khan. Peacock should have Grubmann look at what former Rams fan Khan has done in Jacksonville to show what a loyal dedicated owner looks like. So the region here has produced TWO NFL team owners. Would Khan vote for a Kroenke move?DogtownBnR wrote:Interesting take from JAX. Kahn is committed to Jacksonville. He is investing in the team, the stadium and the city. While it has not translated to wins, he is the owner we could have only dreamed of. . . . .
http://www.jaguars.com/news/article-Jag ... 056fa987f0
Can we create a rule where anyone who cares about the future of St. Louis stops referring to it as a "baseball town"? The term is thoughtless conventional wisdom that is spouted by the media. When your team is good, like the Cardinals have been for about 100 years, the people will support it. When your local team is bad, people stay home and find better things to do. The exception to this is the Cubs, who are fortunate enough to have a baseball themed beer garden for a home stadium.
The Rams have been terrible outside of the Greatest Show years. Nonetheless, the "baseball town" meme will inevitably be used by the media to justify a departure if the team leaves. Please don't reinforce this stupidity by repeating it.
The Rams have been terrible outside of the Greatest Show years. Nonetheless, the "baseball town" meme will inevitably be used by the media to justify a departure if the team leaves. Please don't reinforce this stupidity by repeating it.
Saw this on twitter. Apparently CAR and GRG are working on this mixed use vision with or without the stadium.
![]()
- 597
^Is this a silver bullet, because as I understand it, whatever goes there has to be a panacea. Is this it? Big Mound Cultural park? Did something happen to Cahokia Mounds?
- 9,570
^ yawn....that site will look as it does today in 2025 w/out the stadium...who will build all those buildings shown in that rendering? 
Sorry, I'm not in the cool kids club: CAR and CRG?goat314 wrote:Saw this on twitter. Apparently CAR and GRG are working on this mixed use vision with or without the stadium.
- 9,570
CAR= City Arch Riverdweebe wrote:Sorry, I'm not in the cool kids club: CAR and CRG?goat314 wrote:Saw this on twitter. Apparently CAR and GRG are working on this mixed use vision with or without the stadium.
GRG= Great Rivers Greenway
they are the ones playing with $380,000,000 around the arch.
FWIW, we were mocking the media and the people who use it, not reinforcing it.realclear wrote:Can we create a rule where anyone who cares about the future of St. Louis stops referring to it as a "baseball town"? The term is thoughtless conventional wisdom that is spouted by the media. When your team is good, like the Cardinals have been for about 100 years, the people will support it. When your local team is bad, people stay home and find better things to do. The exception to this is the Cubs, who are fortunate enough to have a baseball themed beer garden for a home stadium.
The Rams have been terrible outside of the Greatest Show years. Nonetheless, the "baseball town" meme will inevitably be used by the media to justify a departure if the team leaves. Please don't reinforce this stupidity by repeating it.
- 3,767
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 9899d.html
Bernie's article pretty much summarizes my point yesterday, regarding the fact that I believe the NFL / Stan will use the surveys, the lack of support (present & past), as well as any other negative "indicators" against us, if they can. At the same time, they say they are very happy with our stadium progress, yet they move up the date that a franchise can announce relocation intentions. Indeed, the NFL will do whatever it wants and they want a team(s) in LA immediately. I have to think Stan's plan is the best in their eyes. If so, the owners will approve the move, especially if the market survey does not favor St. Louis as an NFL market.
Jeff Gordon said on 1490 AM this morning, that his official prediction is the Rams & Chargers in LA. Raiders will be left to either stay in Oakland, move somewhere else or sell. I think it is too hard to say today, but I still think the Rams are leaving because the NFL bylaws are nothing more than recommendations, not true laws and Stan solves the LA solution. So then we must ask ourselves, would be sell the farm and give everything to Mark Davis? That is risky IMO. Do we wait to see if other franchises look to relocate down the road. Then we run the risk of being the new LA. Not to mention, we'll be competing with San Antonio, Toronto and London. I hope I'm wrong and the Rams are forced to stay or stay willingly, but that is doubtful IMO.
Bernie's article pretty much summarizes my point yesterday, regarding the fact that I believe the NFL / Stan will use the surveys, the lack of support (present & past), as well as any other negative "indicators" against us, if they can. At the same time, they say they are very happy with our stadium progress, yet they move up the date that a franchise can announce relocation intentions. Indeed, the NFL will do whatever it wants and they want a team(s) in LA immediately. I have to think Stan's plan is the best in their eyes. If so, the owners will approve the move, especially if the market survey does not favor St. Louis as an NFL market.
Jeff Gordon said on 1490 AM this morning, that his official prediction is the Rams & Chargers in LA. Raiders will be left to either stay in Oakland, move somewhere else or sell. I think it is too hard to say today, but I still think the Rams are leaving because the NFL bylaws are nothing more than recommendations, not true laws and Stan solves the LA solution. So then we must ask ourselves, would be sell the farm and give everything to Mark Davis? That is risky IMO. Do we wait to see if other franchises look to relocate down the road. Then we run the risk of being the new LA. Not to mention, we'll be competing with San Antonio, Toronto and London. I hope I'm wrong and the Rams are forced to stay or stay willingly, but that is doubtful IMO.
While I've always been sitting at 50-50, I'm now totally prepared for the Rams' exit. The rhetoric is too guarded. I refuse, however, to give up hope that Peacock will make something happen, and I love his optimism: Randy K tweeted out a text from Peacock:
"I have a ton of respect for Roger (Goodell) and hope he attends the 1st game in the new stadium"
Also, seems like they are laying the groundwork for broken hearts in San Diego as well.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... san-diego/
"I have a ton of respect for Roger (Goodell) and hope he attends the 1st game in the new stadium"
Also, seems like they are laying the groundwork for broken hearts in San Diego as well.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... san-diego/
- 109
I think NFL wants this "Musical Chairs" thing going to make it easier for stadiums as the well is drying up right now. After the last relocation rush most of the league got new stadiums.
Check this info......
"But here's what was going on back then: a stadium revolution. In the five-season period from 1995-99, eight new NFL stadiums swung open their doors. And the rate only increased at the turn of the century, with nine pro football palaces being christened between 2000 and '03.
Things have slowed since. The 10 years from 2004-13 will bring only four new stadiums. Part of it is that fewer teams need that kind of upgrade anymore. Part is the absence of NFL-sponsored financing in the last CBA. It's simply harder to get those shovels in the ground than it used to be."
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... f-a-decade
The NFL seems to really want the Riverfront Stadium even if they have to uproot a team, same thing with the Inglewood Stadium.
The NFL realized the LA leverage racket is not working anymore so put teams back there.
Check this info......
"But here's what was going on back then: a stadium revolution. In the five-season period from 1995-99, eight new NFL stadiums swung open their doors. And the rate only increased at the turn of the century, with nine pro football palaces being christened between 2000 and '03.
Things have slowed since. The 10 years from 2004-13 will bring only four new stadiums. Part of it is that fewer teams need that kind of upgrade anymore. Part is the absence of NFL-sponsored financing in the last CBA. It's simply harder to get those shovels in the ground than it used to be."
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... f-a-decade
The NFL seems to really want the Riverfront Stadium even if they have to uproot a team, same thing with the Inglewood Stadium.
The NFL realized the LA leverage racket is not working anymore so put teams back there.
- 9,570
Some of you are overthinking this market assessment. NFL can't say the corprate support is lacking if Peacock has an agreement to sell all suites for first 5 seasons of new stadium and next 3 of the dome. NFL can't say there isn't enough corps here when we know for a fact there is more fortune 1000 here then 17 other NFL cities.
- 3,767
^ I agree with you, that those facts are legit.
However, I truly believe that the NFL can not only collect the info in any manner they choose, but they can also interpret it in any way they choose. They can look at the empty seats from the last few seasons, (especially on MNF and openers). They can look at our population trends and see they are not positive. They can look at loss of corporate HQs, even if we still have a lot of big companies here and any criticism would be unfair. The empty seats I expect during the 2015 season, will be unfair. The labeling of STL as a baseball town, unfair. I could go on and on. I will say this. I do think Dave Peacock is the best man for the job. I think he will put up a valiant fight.
In a nutshell, I don't trust the NFL, regardless of what they say. I really don't trust the owners to make this process fair. That is all I'm saying.
However, I truly believe that the NFL can not only collect the info in any manner they choose, but they can also interpret it in any way they choose. They can look at the empty seats from the last few seasons, (especially on MNF and openers). They can look at our population trends and see they are not positive. They can look at loss of corporate HQs, even if we still have a lot of big companies here and any criticism would be unfair. The empty seats I expect during the 2015 season, will be unfair. The labeling of STL as a baseball town, unfair. I could go on and on. I will say this. I do think Dave Peacock is the best man for the job. I think he will put up a valiant fight.
In a nutshell, I don't trust the NFL, regardless of what they say. I really don't trust the owners to make this process fair. That is all I'm saying.
- 8,155
Absolutely. Bernie's column today makes that crystal clear after seeing what Goodell and Grubman have said about the process.DogtownBnR wrote:
In a nutshell, I don't trust the NFL, regardless of what they say. I really don't trust the owners to make this process fair. That is all I'm saying.
“Your supposition is that it’s just public money that turns the key in the lock that opens the door that makes the market viable,” said Grubman, as quoted by the Orange County Register. “That’s not all there is. Let’s put the pieces together. You have to have a stadium and a financing plan … You have to have a market assessment that suggests that the market can and will be healthy for the long term so that stadium plan is supported.
“And if you do that then you’ve demonstrated viability against relocation guidelines, but it still goes to a vote. But the reason I make that distinction is that I could see a scenario where a financing plan is assembled and land is assembled and an entitlement is assembled but the market assessment is dim. And in that scenario, I don’t know that the owners would necessarily feel compelled to keep the team there."
That's from Peacock's BFF Grubman. So we can demonstrate we've met the relocation guidelines but get jacked because we don't meet long term market projections which are whatever the NFL wants them to say. (And Kroenke certainly will make the case that long term health of the Saint Louis market is very much in doubt and that he is the best person as opposed to Davis and Spanos to make sure LA works.)
- 3,767
^Exactly my point! Those quotes are quite disturbing to anyone interested in seeing NFL football in St. Louis past 2015. Way to many ifs ands and buts.....Translation.....
"You can have all of you sh-t together with stadium financing, land acquisition, etc.. etc... etc... BUT, that doesn't mean WE (the NFL) perceive YOU (STL) as a viable market in future (whenever that is). Total BS!!!! I think we in STL have proven to be a viable market for the past 20 seasons. We've endured (while supporting the team very well) some of the worst football (historically speaking) in NFL history, yet we (STL) have not proven ourselves as a viable NFL market yet. Again, total BS!!!
"You can have all of you sh-t together with stadium financing, land acquisition, etc.. etc... etc... BUT, that doesn't mean WE (the NFL) perceive YOU (STL) as a viable market in future (whenever that is). Total BS!!!! I think we in STL have proven to be a viable market for the past 20 seasons. We've endured (while supporting the team very well) some of the worst football (historically speaking) in NFL history, yet we (STL) have not proven ourselves as a viable NFL market yet. Again, total BS!!!
This article says it all!!! Its about time someone (even though he is local) writes the truth about football in St. Louis.
http://www.foxsports.com/midwest/story/ ... ain-032615
http://www.foxsports.com/midwest/story/ ... ain-032615
~ I like that quote. "fight for home". Kroenke is fighting for LA, not home. That is our disadvantage here.I just know my mind-set is to work within the league process and try to do what's best for everybody," Davis told USA TODAY Sports. "There are three teams that need to get their stadiums figured out, and we'll see if we can get that done. I'm happy whichever way that works. I'd be more than happy to have something done in Oakland. I don't see it as a fight for Los Angeles. I see it as a fight for a home."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nf ... /70463628/
"Fight for A home" is different than "Fight for home." I don't see Davis as attributing any loyalty as much as saying "I need a real venue in which to settle down, no matter where it is." He doesn't say what or where his home is, just that he needs one.
Some random thoughts over the last few days:
I found it notable in David Hunn's article yesterday that he says after the owners meetings there is no doubt that Stan wants the Rams in LA. How is this so? Because he wouldn't talk? I get it that all things point to a desire to move, but I don't see how anything that was revealed last week makes that any more or less the case. Why this weekend would have eliminated any doubt of Stan's intentions beyond what was already assumed I don't get from his article. I would agree that other executives' rhetoric is preparing for more movement, but nothing that Stan did or didn't do. Maybe you just had to be there.
No one seems to be discussing Stan's position in LA and the cross-ownership issues. Wouldn't this be even more of a problem in LA as he would have ownership across 3 leagues'markets (NFL, NBA, NHL) and more teams involved in the conflict? (STL cross problem: NHL: St. Louis Rams market share with Blues---Avalanche.....LA cross problem NBA: LA Rams market share with Clippers, Lakers------Nuggets; NHL: LA Rams market share with Kings, Ducks-------Avalanche).
I found it notable in David Hunn's article yesterday that he says after the owners meetings there is no doubt that Stan wants the Rams in LA. How is this so? Because he wouldn't talk? I get it that all things point to a desire to move, but I don't see how anything that was revealed last week makes that any more or less the case. Why this weekend would have eliminated any doubt of Stan's intentions beyond what was already assumed I don't get from his article. I would agree that other executives' rhetoric is preparing for more movement, but nothing that Stan did or didn't do. Maybe you just had to be there.
No one seems to be discussing Stan's position in LA and the cross-ownership issues. Wouldn't this be even more of a problem in LA as he would have ownership across 3 leagues'markets (NFL, NBA, NHL) and more teams involved in the conflict? (STL cross problem: NHL: St. Louis Rams market share with Blues---Avalanche.....LA cross problem NBA: LA Rams market share with Clippers, Lakers------Nuggets; NHL: LA Rams market share with Kings, Ducks-------Avalanche).
- 3,433
Is it hosted by the Rams or by the group that put the survey out?
- 3,433
It is hosted by CSL, the same group that sent out the survey. The forum is being conducted for the NFL, not the Rams. It is about a new stadium. It is part of the market assessment to see if we are worthy. I already plan to say I prefer an open air stadium on the river downtown, and I will buy PSLs, just like I did in 1995. Any other answer could be used against us. I plan to wear the shirt they gave to PSL holders at a Rams PSL holder dome event onetime. By the way, I also plan to wear Rams shirts this year to Cardinal Games, as part of an effort to dispel the myth that St. Louisans DNA is different from other humans, and that we are only baseball fans.
Apparently if Missouri doesn't want to fund a stadium in Missouri, Illinois will look at building it on the East side, according to the new Illinois governor.
http://www.ksdk.com/story/sports/nfl/ra ... /70709454/
http://www.ksdk.com/story/sports/nfl/ra ... /70709454/