urbanSTL

^That is my thought process too. It seems to be a play from the city to speed up the legal process. Proactively attack the arguments that will be raised so that it can't be dragged out in court.

http://www.101sports.com/2015/06/15/six ... -st-louis/

A rare whisper of potentially cockeyed optimism, but nice to read nonetheless.

In reviewing things over the weekend, I have a question. When the task force went to NYC to present, as I recall, no one would go on record to confirm that Kroenke was there. First I read a twitter report (Andy Banker, perhaps) that said Stan was there and liked what he saw, but when Demoff started the media rounds, he wouldn't say if Stan was there or not. From that point forward, everyone (Demoff and Peacock alike) just kept repeating how the league requested that details stay within those NYC walls, when Kroenke questions were posed.

Now that the teams have presented updates to the LA committee in NYC, no one has any issue talking about Stan being there, what Stan wants in LA, and there is no request for retention of any secrecy. To me that bodes well for good news for us, or at least supports the mysterious confidence of Peacock. What would be the downside to everyone knowing that Stan was there or not? The easy answer is the league wants every advantage to keep us working feverishly to get this stadium done. It is interesting that Demoff went around talking to the media after the task force presentation but didn't want to discuss details, and now they won't comment at all.

In any event, it would be nice to get an update from the TF boys sometime soon. I realize August 11 is D Day, but I'm surprised they have not more publically responded to last weeks' events.

^So they are demoing the jail? But a few grain silos are cost prohibitive. What.

^ that would be huge if they could get rid of those two things (I think it might be petroleum tanks, btw, but am not really sure). I wish they had a better look from the riverfront to get a better idea of the trail, but I am disappointed that it doesn't look like they were able to overcome the issue of how to remove the floodwall.... having a waterfront promenade would be so much better and increase regular usage especially if there were a strong attraction at the Union Electric Building. I think the original video showcased some more impressive relationship with the river that maybe just wasn't possible.

gary kreie wrote: Rams could get reasonable and allow, say, another year for floodwall studies, etc. to end up with something even better.

Yeah, what we'll wind up with probably would be considerably different than what we see here. Also, I think there is a lot to Ray Hartmann's argument that Stan will just stick to his options for Jones Dome annual extensions (9 left, I believe) as he has such a sweetheart deal there..... these are the same forces that come into play with the NFL Market analysis; i.e. can an NFL owner make a reasonable profit from a franchise in Saint Louis if required to commit $250 million or whatever to a stadium? When are those supposed to be released?

Mound City wrote:

jstriebel wrote:Some of the cliche's in that video are pretty brutal though.

THIS is THE way to revitalize downtown. This builds on the urban fabric of the city (rather than tearing it down?). Lots of face palms for me.

And I say that as someone who is slowly putting my foot down on the stadium side of the fence.

Completely agree

And I say that as someone who is firmly on the stadium side of the fence and always has been.

I had to cringe a couple of times with all the hyperbole thrown around. I know you want to be positive and everything: but dial it down a notch or two.

What I don't get about Hartmann's argument is if STL is this stagnant, horrendous NFL market, then why did Stan agree to purchase the team on the grounds that they come here? If he is such an amazing businessman, shouldn't he have seen that LA was bound to be more lucrative down the road and STL was earmarked for failure?

It also doesn't seem kosher that Stan (and the NFL) could sit by while STL invests the money, time , and resources necessary to remain in the conversation as an NFL market, only to then be told it was all for nothing because they'll just keep playing in the Dome.

Hartmann acts like it's lunacy for Stan to invest some money to increase the value of the franchise in STL (where he helped move) vs spending much more money to increase the value of the franchise in LA (where he helped leave). I think Hartmann should be credited for analyzing this situation from a perspective not many want to hear, but I don't think it is as cut and dried as he'd like to sell it.

Finally, why is he so surprised that the politicians are greasing legal loopholes and putting up facades in order to get what they want? That's what politicians do......"St. Louis Bandits"? Yeah, because I'm sure STL has the market cornered on political scams.

^ We'll just have to see what the market analyses say about the various cities.... I'm not going to be surprised if the outcome isn't favorable. Also, this is one of the areas where it hurts not to have the County's involvement in the funding; those $$ could have gone to sharing more revenue with the franchise owner, etc.

^ what's changed for you? seems like that is a big sea change in your thinking.

As far as the market studies go, if it's not favorable, then some of it's the team's fault. Like Peacock said early in the process, the back of our regional corporate baseball card puts us is a good place compared to the other NFL markets. The support is there when all the team driven factors that have been thorns in our side are removed.

dbInSouthCity wrote:I've stopped paying attention to this...in my book Rams are gone...everything from here is to save face for Nixon and other "leaders"

Another clue they're gone.
http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-eve ... 629f51c97e

The Rams announced the schedule for the 2015 Bud Light Training Camp presented by Dr. Pepper on Tuesday, which will include eight open practices at Rams Park and an open scrimmage at Lindenwood University.

Additionally, the Rams will participate in two joint practices with the Cowboys in Oxnard, Calif. on Aug. 17 and 18, following the first preseason game against the Raiders in Oakland, Calif. The Rams will also hold a solo practice in Oxnard on Aug. 19. All three sessions will be open to the public.

The club’s rookies will report to camp on July 27, with the veterans report date coming two days later on July 29. The first practice open to the public will begin on Friday, July 31 at 3:30 p.m. CT.

St. Louis’ open scrimmage at Lindenwood will be held at 5 p.m. on Friday, Aug. 7, and select players will sign autographs with fans after the session.

You can check out the complete schedule of the Rams’ open training camp practices below.

Date | Practice start time

Open practices at Rams Park*

Friday, July 31 | 3:30 p.m. CT
Saturday, Aug. 1 | 3:30 p.m. CT
Sunday, Aug. 2 | 5:30 p.m. CT
Tuesday, Aug. 4 | 3:30 p.m. CT
Thursday, Aug. 6 | 5:30 p.m. CT
Friday, Aug. 7 | 5 p.m. CT Scrimmage at Lindenwood University
Sunday, Aug. 9 | Practice 3:30 p.m. CT
Monday, Aug. 10 | Practice 3:30 p.m. CT
Tuesday, Aug. 11 | Practice 5:30 p.m. CT

Open practices in Oxnard, Calif.**

Monday, Aug. 17 | 4:25 p.m. PT with Cowboys
Tuesday, Aug. 18 | 4:25 p.m. PT with Cowboys
Wednesday, Aug. 19 | 10:30 a.m. PT

^Does that mean the Cowboys are moving to LA too

STLEnginerd wrote:^Does that mean the Cowboys are moving to LA too

Most of their training camps have been in California. I assume because the Texas summers are so bleeping hot. I want to say the New Orleans Saints as well as the old Houston Oilers sometimes train(ed) some place with cooler weather.

^ For me, I don't know if San Diego will work something out or maybe Oakland, but I think the odds are stacked way against Saint Louis because for the Rams to stay it is so much more of a complex situation where almost everything has to go our way. Its almost like patching together a Rube Goldberg machine to complete the task.

moorlander wrote:What gives you confidence the Chargers get anything done with SD?

Looks like the Chargers just gave up. Text of their statement released this afternoon.

“On behalf of our entire organization, the Chargers thank the City of San Diego’s negotiating team for working with us to try to find a way, at this late date, to place a stadium ballot measure before voters in December 2015 while complying fully with the California Environmental Quality Act and election law requirements,” the Chargers said in a statement. “Both groups have spent many hours examining possible options, and we have now discussed these options together at three formal meetings and during numerous informal conversations. Based on all of this work and discussion, the Chargers have concluded that it is not possible to place a ballot measure before voters in December 2015 in a legally defensible manner given the requirements of the State’s election law and the California Environmental Quality Act. The various options that we have explored with the City’s experts all lead to the same result: Significant time-consuming litigation founded on multiple legal challenges, followed by a high risk of eventual defeat in the courts.

The Chargers are committed to maintaining an open line of communication with the City’s negotiators as we move through the summer and leading up to the special August meeting of National Football League owners. That meeting may provide important information about what is likely to occur during the remainder of 2015.”