Share
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostAug 24, 2015#2476

roger wyoming II wrote:If the stadium doesn't move forward, I think the revival of KC's somewhat similar West Bottoms warehouse area as an arts/loft district represents a nice plan moving forward:

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/p ... eally.html

Again, as the number of warehouses in Downtown and Downtown West dwindle, developers eventually would find there way there and I think an "affordable" district would be beneficial.
Nothing against that plan—like at all, it looks great. But I think the answer is to downgrade the stadium to an MLS venue and build it relatively in the same spot.

It would be 25% the cost, it'd be a guarantee for an MLS team (an NFL stadium is not), and it'd preserve more of the urban environment with less parking required. Plus, we could build a youth soccer complex as well, drawing an audience to an area that otherwise might avoid it (except on game days).

The only issue there is whether the powers that be would be interested in doing so. While the total cost is 25% of the football stadium, it really gets down to who's paying it. If it's entirely privately financed, then it's only a bit cheaper than the NFL stadium. But still, it's cheaper. And I'd argue it'd be nearly if not more valuable.

To clarify, I'm not trying to argue that we should just build a soccer stadium and scrap the football stadium (though I have argued this before and would consider doing so again), I'm just saying that IF the NFL stadium doesn't get built, then I hope we'll still set our sights on the MLS.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostAug 24, 2015#2477

^ yeah, I think with an MLS stadium you could do a bit of sports and an arts/loft district. What I do worry about if the NFL stadium plan doesn't move forward with Rams is that the area sits in limbo for a long time with everyone wondering what will be next.... i.e. whether we can get another team to come. Maybe a good solution is for Port Authority or some agency to buy some of the key parcels from the willing sellers and bundle things for an rfp after a certain period.
267
Full MemberFull Member
267

PostAug 24, 2015#2478

roger wyoming II wrote:Maybe a good solution is for Port Authority or some agency to buy some of the key parcels from the willing sellers and bundle things for an rfp after a certain period.
It seems like an expensive endeavor for a city that seems to never have room in the budget to maintain quality infrastructure and service delivery for existing residents, but I think land assemblage on the north riverfront for large scale economic development schemes is what the city is going for, regardless of whether the stadium deal goes through or not. I think that's what the "Plan B" deal with GRG was about.

And if they assemble all this land, and instead of getting a stadium, use the 100+ acres on the riverfront to land a real employer to the region, I think it'd be much better and certainly more profitable outcome for the City.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostAug 24, 2015#2479

^ yeah, hopefully the outcome of all of this if there's no stadium is people have woken up a bit to the possibilities. GRG & LRA already have some key parcels and I know a few others are available from willing sellers and with a bit of effort and subsidy the area will be just fine in due time. I think the challenge if we want to make a truly dense area is some of the infrastructure costs like relocating the power lines, etc. but you can do a lot in the interim.
60
New MemberNew Member
60

PostAug 25, 2015#2480

sirshankalot wrote:Oh, it's happening....and the rumors floating around right now are crazy!!
I can't tell if this is serious. I really hope you aren't tugging at my heart strings. If you are being serious, when can you share more information?
641
Senior MemberSenior Member
641

PostAug 25, 2015#2481

Rumors of Stan possibly selling Rams if stadium financing gets finalized....just rumors though
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostAug 25, 2015#2482

sirshankalot wrote:Rumors of Stan possibly selling Rams if stadium financing gets finalized....just rumors though
Rumors that anyone here could read or rumors you're hearing through a very specific grapevine?
9,566
Life MemberLife Member
9,566

PostAug 25, 2015#2483

I would rate that rumor to be about 1.2 on a scale of 10 of being true.
641
Senior MemberSenior Member
641

PostAug 25, 2015#2484

Specific enough that there exists 2 prospective ownership groups
3,767
Life MemberLife Member
3,767

PostAug 25, 2015#2485

I heard Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, on KMOX this morning, again, stating his opposition to the extending of the bonds. As in the past, he is against “Gov. Nixon putting the state in debt by hundreds of millions of dollars”. He is also in favor of it either going to a vote &/or going before the legislature, before any bond payments are made. As he did in the past, he also said that he will filibuster. Obviously, he has been saying this for a while now.
The question: What is the likelihood that Schaaf derails the stadium effort? Is he all talk or does his rhetoric have legs? If Nixon gets the bonds issued, will he and the others in opposition, be able to withhold payments on these bonds? Will there be a compromise? What will the Task Force and Nixon say, to counter his arguments? Does anyone think that Schaaf would be less likely to oppose this project, if it were being done on the western side of the state? I just wonder what makes this guy tick.
337
Full MemberFull Member
337

PostAug 25, 2015#2486

My sense is he legitimately does not want Governor Nixon to extend the bonds, but there isn't really anything he can do about it at this point. They had all past legislative session to mount a legislative challenge to the governor's authority to extend the bonds vis-a-vis the RSA statutes, and they could not get anything off the ground. The City/public vote lawsuit was a decisive defeat for the anti-stadium crowd, and the Cole County lawsuit filed by Schaaf, et. al. seems to be heading in the same direction.

Nixon has the authority to extend the bonds per the RSA statutes, and he'll soon have the additional backing of two lawsuits decided in his favor, and he's definitely going to do it (provided that the STL Board of Aldermen play ball), so the money will come due. Schaaf and his cohorts could possibly filibuster the state making payments on the bonds owed like they are threatening they will do, but to do so would throw Missouri's AAA credit rating into serious jeopardy, which could have severely detrimental effects on the state's ability to borrow money going forward, and so seems extremely unlikely to me.

All this noise we're hearing over the past several days to me just seems like those guys know they can't do anything about it at this point (short of harming our state's credit rating), so they're posturing as hard as they can with a bunch of public interviews and open letters to try to put the pressure on the governor.
7,810
Life MemberLife Member
7,810

PostAug 25, 2015#2487

After a year long break from Twitter, Joe Buck is back and letting loose with both barrels.

*My opinion: take the NFL out of Stl and our downtown has no impetus for change. Indy and Cincy have passed us by. It's bigger than football
*Downtown Stl can't b just random restaurants, Cardinal baseball, a truncated version of Ballpark Village,and some Blues games-life is needed
*Kroenke not only has the chance to cash in on LA,but punch a great city that at one point he seemed to enjoy. Esp when Rams were relevant
*Suck the life out of a team, run it down, raise prices, then say it isn't supported and leave. Great example for the NFL to celebrate JOKE!
*An owner who wore a NEW Rams hat in Oxnard and acts like he's been there promoting the team while with Jerry-what an insult to good fans
*Chris Patton @chrispatton_33
@Buck How better of would STL have been if Shad Khan had been able to buy the #Rams?
100 percent better Joe Buck added,[/list]
1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostAug 25, 2015#2488

https://twitter.com/DailyNewsVinny?ref_ ... r%5Eauthor

There's some talk in there about not being surprised if Stan goes year to year to eye London or Toronto if Carson gets the nod. How can the NFL just let us be a bus stop while teams shop for other markets? Either we are all in with an updated long term team commitment or we're out. With this stadium plan (hopefully) ready to go, I hope the NFL helps actually helps make it happen if they don't allow the Rams to go to LA.
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostAug 25, 2015#2489

The only problem with what Buck is saying—and I told him as much—is the idea that this is the thing that will revitalize downtown. That this puts us ahead or behind Indy or Cincy.

Not true. Not true at all. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.

The football stadium is just a nicety. And that's okay. But it's not the deciding factor on the fate of downtown.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostAug 25, 2015#2490

^ yup. that's just crazy talk. I also responded that he promised a downtown paved in gold as a result of City+Arch+River.
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostAug 25, 2015#2491

dweebe wrote:After a year long break from Twitter, Joe Buck is back and letting loose with both barrels.

*My opinion: take the NFL out of Stl and our downtown has no impetus for change. Indy and Cincy have passed us by. It's bigger than football
*Downtown Stl can't b just random restaurants, Cardinal baseball, a truncated version of Ballpark Village,and some Blues games-life is needed
*Kroenke not only has the chance to cash in on LA,but punch a great city that at one point he seemed to enjoy. Esp when Rams were relevant
*Suck the life out of a team, run it down, raise prices, then say it isn't supported and leave. Great example for the NFL to celebrate JOKE!
*An owner who wore a NEW Rams hat in Oxnard and acts like he's been there promoting the team while with Jerry-what an insult to good fans
*Chris Patton @chrispatton_33
@Buck How better of would STL have been if Shad Khan had been able to buy the #Rams?
100 percent better Joe Buck added,[/list]

Love that someone finally has some backbone. Stan is shitting on his home town, and loyal fan base. What a POS.
337
Full MemberFull Member
337

PostAug 25, 2015#2492

Agreed, I freaking love what Buck did today on Twitter
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostAug 26, 2015#2493

Love that he expresses his loyalty to St. Louis
Love that he acknowledges downtown needs a boost
Love that he calls out Kronke

Not so sure about his belief in the stadium being the thing that changes the game for downtown. If anything LOSING the Rams would be a much more effective wake up call for us than Keeping them. Additionally unless you think the Rams are to credit for St. Louis' current downtown resurgence (One of the slowest recovering downtowns in the nation) then what difference will keeping them make.

That said I want them to stay and would support SOME public investment aimed at keeping them here. I would be fine with the current plan if they would consider saving a few more historic building and incorporate them into the plan.
9,566
Life MemberLife Member
9,566

PostAug 26, 2015#2494

For what its worth
I just had a conversation with Kevin Demoff for the last 40 minutes or so in the cafe at my work. I honestly feel like I learned more in those 40 minutes than I have all year from the media.

Key points (all according to Demoff of course, but he appeared to be very genuine):

- Kroenke NEVER said St. Louis no longer works for the Rams. Demoff personally called Dave Peacock to tell him that never happened.

- The Rams are not keen on sharing the stadium with an MLS team. Not sure region can support 4 teams, and causes concerns about who gets paid what for non game day events.

- St. Louis still has a chance. Nothing is definite. The Rams will not remove L.A. from the equation until they know the final deal from St. Louis. He flat out said "doing so would remove all leverage in case something falls through here."

- He and Peacock talk all the time, about "multiple options and scenarios." Said he wishes Peacock had been involved three years ago, and that he's the best person he's ever worked with in St. Louis.

- This is not just a financial decision. If it was, L.A. would win out hands down all day long. There is a civic aspect to this. But there is concern about the long term financial stability of the St. Louis region.

- Attendance is a non-issue. The team and league both understand that the poor product and lease issue is causing the lowered attendance. The team has never once used attendance as a reason to the league that they might move.

- Everything will be decided by December.

-he said Stan will not speak and does not speak because people that want to believe the Rams will stay will believe him if he says they will and those that don't, won't. He said it's pointless.

-If no one shows up for the games because it's understandable, so out reach from Kroenke to the community for the sake of improving attendance isn't necessarily important. What is important is resolving the stadium issue and then moving on from there.

-he said no decision has been made. Period. He said his family asks him every day and he tells them the same thing. He said his kids cried when they heard the team might move. He said he loves St. Louis and wants to stay here to raise his family, but that L.A. was fun for him when he was younger, so there is appeal to both cities.
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostAug 26, 2015#2495

^Er, who's quote is that?
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostAug 26, 2015#2496

The Rams killing the potential of an MLS team would be a deal breaker for me. St. Louis would be giving them a TON in this deal. Can't let the Rams boss them around on actually using the stadium the other 352-355 days a year.

Other than that, that all sounds positive.

Only problem is I have no idea where it came from.

PostAug 26, 2015#2497

Well I found it.

Not that it's not believable, but since it's a totally anonymous source, I have to give it the grain of salt treatment.

http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/vie ... &t=1127748

PostAug 26, 2015#2498

I'm reading more.

That guy claims to be one of the original founders of Keep the Rams in St. Louis, though I can't find a name.

Twitter research shows that the company he spoke at was Citi.
9,566
Life MemberLife Member
9,566

PostAug 27, 2015#2499

Seems legit, there was multiple posters who worked at the same place and were at the same event...oddly enough it was on Civic Pride... :?
1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostAug 29, 2015#2500

A few thoughts on Joe Buck. I'm a little confused as to Joe's timing and motives. Joe officially endorsed the Riverfront Stadium by lending his name and voice to the Taskforce's promotional video. The Taskforce went on record as thanking Joe Buck for said assistance. Dave Peacock has been rather clear in his avoidance of attacking Stan personally or professionally while maintaining the focus on STL's efforts. I find it hard to believe that with Joe "on board" with the Taskforce he didn't run this by them first. In other words, I wonder what Dave would say about Joe's now rather public opinion of Stan compared to his own. This seems inconsistent from a strategy perspective. Maybe Joe truly "went rogue" on this, however with the extended leaves from Twitter he apparently takes at times, it seems this rant would have been cleared with the Tasforce. Just my 2 cents and hopefully not a display of lost momentum in the background.

Also, anyone with access to the Business Journal have any insight on this week's article? Multiple outlets have released that Peacock is "more confident than ever..." but I never heard any details.
Read more posts (3002 remaining)
Share