urbanSTL

AB has signed a new sponsorship wit the Rams

and Howard Blazer reporting that Stan might be willing to put in more then the $200M....

this thing just keeps swinging back and forth, when will it stop is the question.




ANHEUSER-BUSCH TO BECOME TITLE SPONSOR OF RAMS PREMIUM CLUB
ST. LOUIS, Mo. – The St. Louis Rams announced today the signing of a sponsorship agreement with Anheuser-Busch, providing the nation’s leading brewer with exclusive naming rights to the team’s premium club located on the south side of the Edward Jones Dome.

As the title sponsor of the Budweiser Signature Club, Anheuser-Busch will also obtain various promotional elements such as branding on premium club tickets and exterior signage at the Edward Jones Dome and 6th and Convention fan plaza. The St. Louis-based company will also receive digital advertising and inclusion on the Rams’ official website.

“We’re excited for Anheuser-Busch and Budweiser to play an even bigger role in helping Rams fans enjoy their time at the stadium,” said Brian Perkins, vice president, Budweiser. “There’s nothing like the excitement of a live NFL game, especially in St. Louis—Anheuser-Busch’s hometown—and we’re thrilled to be part of the great environment at the Edward Jones Dome.”

The Budweiser Signature Club, formerly known as the Clarkson Jewelers Club, offers optimal views above the south end zone and will feature Anheuser-Busch branding throughout. Highlighting the Budweiser Signature Club experience, is an all-inclusive buffet, open bar, VIP parking packages, concierges and in-seat beverage service. Fans can opt to view the game in either terrace seating or loge boxes, which include four recliner-style seats and two high-definition televisions.

For more details about the Budweiser Signature Club, fans may call (314) RAMS-TIX or visit http://www.stlouisrams.com/tickets/index.html.

I'd like to see Chouteau Lake revived somewhere along the way. I just spent a couple days on a houseboat on Lake Union in Seattle, and having non-ocean or non-river flatwater that close to downtown would be transforming. It wouldn't support houseboats of course, but even putting man-made canals in former alleys as OKC has done creates an uplifting affect on the whole downtown.

^ Maybe Stan is realizing that the move to LA will be more costly than original envisioned (politically and financially), why not get a sweetheart deal for a new stadium and adjacent build ready property in St. Louis, sell the team to the highest bidder, turn around and buy the Broncos and end the cross-market controversy? I honestly think this whole L.A. situation was just another move to get the sweetest deal from St. Louis as possible, playing off our low regional self-esteem and juicing us for what we are worth, and if the deal falls through he has options on the L.A. market. Stan has still not said publicly that he no longer wants to be in St. Louis, no renderings have been released with the Rams logo on an L.A. stadium, no shovels have hit the ground in Inglewood, so I think its safe to assume that Kroenke is keeping his "options" open, which probably includes new riverfront stadium.

^ I would say yes and no. I think most in his situation would have played it both ways. Does he need to? nom but he has put himself in a great position whether RAMS stay in St. Louis or move to LA.

I think the wild card which moved just as fast as St. Louis did was the Carson City stadium deal as the determent to Oakland and San Diego. I think the Carson city deal along with a NFL studios, west coast hall of fame, and so forth is a much better deal for NFL and the owners as a whole as three teams would be playing in new stadiums, gets NFL back in LA and keeps existing St. Louis market intact. At same time, Stan K wins whether RAMS stay or move

San Diego may do better without NFL
Economically, almost anything beats public funding for a new Chargers stadium.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... ign=buffer

This may be true for San Diego, which is different from St. Louis. This article assumes $600M in public funding for San Diego, vs $400M in St. Louis. Also, the stadium would be on prime land there, vs. mostly abandoned lots in St. Louis that the city owned. And no loss of state income tax from the team there, since the team would stay in California. So that article is working from entirely different assumptions.

As far as I know, this is one of the few local stories in SD questioning the stadium plan, whereas in St. Louis there seems to be a constant drumbeat of articles from the local Ed Boards trying to kill the stadium here. It's almost a media-Kroenke coalition vs. the sports folks and people who advocate keeping the NFL in St. Louis and getting the half a billion in outside money for a new capital asset downtown. I noticed the St. Louis Business Journal did an informal survey of business folks, and they all said they touted St. Louis as an NFL city when they go out to recruit talent to our city. How do you put a dollar value on that?

I actually really enjoyed that segment

Some predictions from the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html

dweebe wrote:John Oliver had a long segment about public stadium financing.

http://youtu.be/xcwJt4bcnXs

John Oliver is the funniest guy on TV in my opinion. That was hilarious. Unfortunately Congress gives the NFL anti-trust exemptions that allows them to control supply and demand of their product. If a Walmart threatened to leave town, we'd just talk to COSTCO and get them to build a new store. But we can't build a new NFL team without the NFL's permission.

Of course John Oliver is right about demanding that the NFL pay. But if we do what he says, we'll lose our football team. So it kind of comes down to where do we spend public money to help private businesses. Nobody is demanding that private business pay for all the bicycle trails that may benefit their area, such as the planned GRG trails development on the North Riverfront. But we agree we want to spend public money on trails because we think it is good for the city, attracts new people, and we want to be that kind of town.

We need to use the same logic with regard to the stadium. Will it benefit folks living here, will it help attract new people, and do we want to be a town like KC and Minneapolis, or would we be happier dialing back to become a nice town like Memphis or Dayton.

John Oliver rips greedy sports team owners who blackmail cities into building them absurd stadiums

gary kreie wrote:We need to use the same logic with regard to the stadium. Will it benefit folks living here, will it help attract new people, and do we want to be a town like KC and Minneapolis, or would we be happier dialing back to become a nice town like Memphis or Dayton.

Benefit how? A nicer venue to watch football games? Ticket prices surely will increase. Hard to say if quality of play will increase.

Attract new people? No one is moving to STL because of an NFL team.

Should we 'want' to be like KC? Does KC have anything we don't?

Why is the Rams leaving, considered "dialing back?" And Memphis or Dayton? Are you serious?? If the Rams leave, do we magically lose 1 million residents?

STLEnginerd wrote:

Attract new people? No one is moving to STL because of an NFL team.

Not actually true. I personally know people who chose St. Louis over a roughly equal offer elsewhere because they were huge football fans and wanted to be somewhere with an NFL team.

That said its not a HUGE factor and how much its worth to the city/region is subjective. Also anecdotally they moved to the county so in the current context where the city is expected to foot the bill the city gets the short end.

In a similar vein, Mizzou's enrollment has skyrocketed since they joined the SEC. While the economics of attending an in-state public university vs. going elsewhere has undoubtedly played a major role in that stat, so has the fact that SEC football has made Mizzou a more desirable place to be if you're a teenager/early-twenty-something looking to go to college. Look at the SEC games on T.V. They are massive events. If you're a college-aged kid, you want to go there. You want to be there. You want to see people there. You want to be seen there. Frankly, it reminds me a lot of the way Rams games were back from 1999 until roughly 2004.

I know people who chose to go to Mizzou in the past couple years in part because they love SEC football, and I also know people who've left St. Louis for job opportunities who weighed relatively equal opportunities in Nashville and Austin, as well as Kansas City and Portland, and each respectively chose Nashville and Kansas City, in part because they prefer a city with NFL football. Hell, if the Rams leave, I know I'd be thinking about it, too.

Like STLEnginerd, I realize these are anecdotal and therefore useless in the broader policy discussion. But to say "No one is moving to STL because of an NFL team" is patently false. It can make a difference, it has made a difference, and going forward, it will make a difference in the future.

Mound City wrote:

STLEnginerd wrote:

Attract new people? No one is moving to STL because of an NFL team.

Not actually true. I personally know people who chose St. Louis over a roughly equal offer elsewhere because they were huge football fans and wanted to be somewhere with an NFL team.

That said its not a HUGE factor and how much its worth to the city/region is subjective. Also anecdotally they moved to the county so in the current context where the city is expected to foot the bill the city gets the short end.

In a similar vein, Mizzou's enrollment has skyrocketed since they joined the SEC. While the economics of attending an in-state public university vs. going elsewhere has undoubtedly played a major role in that stat, so has the fact that SEC football has made Mizzou a more desirable place to be if you're a teenager/early-twenty-something looking to go to college. Look at the SEC games on T.V. They are massive events. If you're a college-aged kid, you want to go there. You want to be there. You want to see people there. You want to be seen there. Frankly, it reminds me a lot of the way Rams games were back from 1999 until roughly 2004.

The enrollment conversation is always a weird thing to me.

It's not like Mizzou wasn't turning kids away before they joined the SEC right? So all it takes to increase enrollment is to want to.

Now, applications may be up, too, and so perhaps they're able to increase enrollment without a major decrease in standards. On the other hand, SEC schools are not known for their academics (with some exceptions), so I don't know whether that's a major thing either.

I do know applications tend to go up for any school that has national success. But I don't know how that translates to quality of students.

I know people who chose to go to Mizzou in the past couple years in part because they love SEC football, and I also know people who've left St. Louis for job opportunities who weighed relatively equal opportunities in Nashville and Austin, as well as Kansas City and Portland, and each respectively chose Nashville and Kansas City, in part because they prefer a city with NFL football. Hell, if the Rams leave, I know I'd be thinking about it, too.

Like STLEnginerd, I realize these are anecdotal and therefore useless in the broader policy discussion. But to say "No one is moving to STL because of an NFL team" is patently false. It can make a difference, it has made a difference, and going forward, it will make a difference in the future.

It is almost certainly true that some people will choose to live in an NFL city vs. a non-NFL city. But what that doesn't account for is the people that will choose a city who spends their money on other things that are attractive.

Portland is a good example. I will never leave St. Louis, but if "home" wasn't a factor, and I was choosing between KC and Portland, I would choose Portland.

And it's not because I specifically don't want an NFL team, but it's because the things Portland has prioritized are attractive to me. And I think there's a decent case to be made that they prioritize the things they do because they don't prioritize things like NFL football.

There's no black and white here. It's not something there are easy answers, too. But I don't think having an NFL team is likely to have a large overall impact on whether we're attracting people to or losing people from our region in TOTAL.

Presumably we'd hope that without the Rams stadium, the money would be spent on something else that improves the region and presumably would make it more attractive. But, I recognize that some of the money may be stadium-specific, and that practically-speaking there are doubts about whether the city would actually implement a comparable non-stadium vision for local improvement.

I think the first thing that may attract a young person/college grad to our city is a job. We need jobs, jobs and more jobs.
However, if he/she has several offers in several cities, that is where the intangibles, like cost of living, ammenities, # of pro sports teams, cool neighborhoods, nightlife, low crime, etc. I think pro sports is one of many things young people consider. That is why I don't think you can completely shoot down the idea that an NFL team can attract new people to a city. It is one of many factors people MAY look at, when considering a move. Of course there are several other factors, many of which that rank higher on the priority list over pro sports teams and new venues in the city. While I am not convinced it will attract enough people to mention, it is great for morale of a city and gets a city noticed nationally. Look at what the All-Star Game is doing for Cincy right now. That TV promo showing aerials of their downtown, featuring the Great American Tower is impressive. Pro sports has it's benefits, many intangible, immeasurable and overlooked. That is why I support remaining an NFL city, no matter how that has to happen.

Agree that I'd rather see the money go toward something like a comprehensive public transit overhaul; if there was a ballot measure this November to pick one or the other, I'd go with the public trans. We all know it will never come to anything like that.

They're being shady about the deal's particulars, but if the public contribution is comparable to the situation we're in now, and it's paid off via existing revenue streams, then I'm cool with it.

Just no asinine ten-year "top tier" guarantees.

I wonder if the Stadium Task force fails to keep the Rams here and does not get a team to commit here (by getting the stadium deal done), if they fold or continue their efforts. I could see them attempting to get an MLS specific stadium built somewhere. I'm not sure if they have interest in doing that. I sure hope we get a quality soccer venue here at some point. I was jealous watching that USMNT Gold Cup game in KC last night. I'm sure that one game was a nice to boost to that city's economy.

Back to the Task Force. I can see them continuing their efforts, focusing on attracting another NFL team. That will be a long and tough road. I hate the thought of being used a pawn, like LA was and we were before the Rams moved here. I would love to have a crystal ball in regards to this situation.

If the NFL leaves here, I suspect it won't be coming back in our lifetimes. An MLS stadium/team would be a lame consolation prize to me. On the other hand, it would be freaking awesome to nail one of those down in addition to keeping the NFL here.

I agree, nailing down both has to be the goal!
I'd MLS only, over neither. That's for sure!

I'd prefer an NFL only venue and a separate MLS specific venue. What would be awesome, would be an MLS venue where Choteau's Pond was supposed to go. (assuming that never gets done) Move the tracks, build a smaller pond and an MLS venue. I really want this venue in the middle of this City, without requiring much if any demo of historic buildings. Those rail tracks are so bad for the City. That obstacle kills connectivity between Downtown and the Southside.

I'm being greedy, I know!