^ I would like to think if the Rams left the NBA would see potential in a market with some freed up demand but I have no idea on the opportunities that might exist with relocation or expansion. Obviously it wouldn't be at Scottrade, but I do think there would be a decent shot at MLS with expressed expansion intentions.
I'm not the type of person that lacks confidence in St. Louis. This isn't me being negative about whether or not St. Louis can attract the NBA.
This is just my honest assessment of where such a situation stands.
1. There is no movement on the horizon in any city for the NBA right now. To my knowledge, there isn't any impending expansion being hinted at. There is in the NHL, so perhaps the NBA might follow suit as some point, but right now I've heard nothing of the sort. Has someone else? There are also no teams in a precarious ownership or arena situation at the moment. So this is the biggest reason why any NBA to STL efforts are a little unrealistic at the moment. If expansion talk becomes a thing, then maybe there's a shot.
2. While it's a fair assessment to say that the NFL leaving frees up some sports dollars, the NBA and the NHL don't enter the same city too often these days. By my count, there are 15 markets that have NBA and NHL teams. That's all well and good, but only despite numerous franchise relocations and expansions in the last 2 decades, the last time a team from one league entered the market of the other was in 2000 with the hockey hot bed of Minneapolis-St. Paul in Minnesota. Prior to that it was the NHL's entrance to Phoenix in 1996. Actually, I have to correct myself somewhat here. The NHL also entered Atlanta in 1999, but the team failed to get a foothold in them market and moved away to Winnipeg, Canada in 2011.) The NHL and the NBA have at track record of not competing with each other in mid-sized markets—traditionally placed teams not withstanding.
3. There may be other cities notably ahead of St. Louis on the list. The top one is Seattle. Seattle fans miss their Super Sonics, and the NBA would not mind returning to the market. Others are less clearly ahead of St. Louis but have been rumored in the past. Those include Kansas City, Louisville, and Virginia Beach (odd as that may sound).
4. Following up on that, the main reason Seattle is a heavy favorite to land any relocating team is that they have ownership interested in luring a franchise. Kansas City probably hasn't landed any professional sports teams for their no longer new Sprint Center arena because to my knowledge they had no ownership groups pushing for it. Likewise, St. Louis hasn't had any one interested in bringing a team here since Bill Laurie was rebuffed by the NBA. I suppose if you're suggesting this as what we "should" do, you can call for a hypothetical ownership group, but my point is that right now we have none. The NBA will not be awarding a franchise to a city, they'll do so to an owner.
I want the NBA. And I believe St. Louis could do very, very well with an NBA team (especially with the Rams out of the picture). I didn't mean to be a downer about it. I just don't think that's a particularly realistic aspiration at this point.
This is just my honest assessment of where such a situation stands.
1. There is no movement on the horizon in any city for the NBA right now. To my knowledge, there isn't any impending expansion being hinted at. There is in the NHL, so perhaps the NBA might follow suit as some point, but right now I've heard nothing of the sort. Has someone else? There are also no teams in a precarious ownership or arena situation at the moment. So this is the biggest reason why any NBA to STL efforts are a little unrealistic at the moment. If expansion talk becomes a thing, then maybe there's a shot.
2. While it's a fair assessment to say that the NFL leaving frees up some sports dollars, the NBA and the NHL don't enter the same city too often these days. By my count, there are 15 markets that have NBA and NHL teams. That's all well and good, but only despite numerous franchise relocations and expansions in the last 2 decades, the last time a team from one league entered the market of the other was in 2000 with the hockey hot bed of Minneapolis-St. Paul in Minnesota. Prior to that it was the NHL's entrance to Phoenix in 1996. Actually, I have to correct myself somewhat here. The NHL also entered Atlanta in 1999, but the team failed to get a foothold in them market and moved away to Winnipeg, Canada in 2011.) The NHL and the NBA have at track record of not competing with each other in mid-sized markets—traditionally placed teams not withstanding.
3. There may be other cities notably ahead of St. Louis on the list. The top one is Seattle. Seattle fans miss their Super Sonics, and the NBA would not mind returning to the market. Others are less clearly ahead of St. Louis but have been rumored in the past. Those include Kansas City, Louisville, and Virginia Beach (odd as that may sound).
4. Following up on that, the main reason Seattle is a heavy favorite to land any relocating team is that they have ownership interested in luring a franchise. Kansas City probably hasn't landed any professional sports teams for their no longer new Sprint Center arena because to my knowledge they had no ownership groups pushing for it. Likewise, St. Louis hasn't had any one interested in bringing a team here since Bill Laurie was rebuffed by the NBA. I suppose if you're suggesting this as what we "should" do, you can call for a hypothetical ownership group, but my point is that right now we have none. The NBA will not be awarding a franchise to a city, they'll do so to an owner.
I want the NBA. And I believe St. Louis could do very, very well with an NBA team (especially with the Rams out of the picture). I didn't mean to be a downer about it. I just don't think that's a particularly realistic aspiration at this point.
- 9,567
Months ago i said only scenario that really still could have the Rams leave is the partnership with the Chargers....i appears to be headed that way.
My feelings towards it is - well that sucks than i move on to the next task of the day...its that simple. Im still going to watch the Rams and be a fan, same way the people in LA are still fans after 20 years. I dont get down too much about things i cant control.
Who is to blame? well plenty of that to go around from the original drafters of the lease...to the task force strategy. County being out was a big step back and potential a fatal one. Vote/No vote was never an issue for the TF, they knew the vote wouldn't pass so they had to get around it. Blues should be pretty have (internally) now they may just get some of those Scottrade Center improvements without spending too much of their own $
My feelings towards it is - well that sucks than i move on to the next task of the day...its that simple. Im still going to watch the Rams and be a fan, same way the people in LA are still fans after 20 years. I dont get down too much about things i cant control.
Who is to blame? well plenty of that to go around from the original drafters of the lease...to the task force strategy. County being out was a big step back and potential a fatal one. Vote/No vote was never an issue for the TF, they knew the vote wouldn't pass so they had to get around it. Blues should be pretty have (internally) now they may just get some of those Scottrade Center improvements without spending too much of their own $
I think the reality is that STL will follow about the same path that it has been on, just without football. I'll believe it when I see it that this loss will cause a feel good, unified response from regional leaders to accelerate progress and development.
The other unfortunate part of this is that now the work of the task force will likely continue in some capacity to remain in the conversation for entrance into the NFL in the future. That is unlikely to happen for many years, but they won't just give up entirely. Just like in the late 80s, almost immediately after the Cardinals bolted, work was being done to explore options. A similar scenario will happen here most likely for expansion or owners looking for a better deal. The problem, however, and this is why I disagree that similar problems will face other regions in the future is I don't think many, if any, existing owners truly want to move. We had the misfortune of being saddled with 2 different owners that had transient ties at best to the region.
Once the Rams/NFL are gone, the clock will be ticking for all the naysayers to get things cleaned up. What will be the excuse for crime, lack of police force, poor school trends, and the like without the NFL here? It will be interesting to see those questions answered or responded to. I'm sure some other impediment will be quickly cited to block progress.
The other unfortunate part of this is that now the work of the task force will likely continue in some capacity to remain in the conversation for entrance into the NFL in the future. That is unlikely to happen for many years, but they won't just give up entirely. Just like in the late 80s, almost immediately after the Cardinals bolted, work was being done to explore options. A similar scenario will happen here most likely for expansion or owners looking for a better deal. The problem, however, and this is why I disagree that similar problems will face other regions in the future is I don't think many, if any, existing owners truly want to move. We had the misfortune of being saddled with 2 different owners that had transient ties at best to the region.
Once the Rams/NFL are gone, the clock will be ticking for all the naysayers to get things cleaned up. What will be the excuse for crime, lack of police force, poor school trends, and the like without the NFL here? It will be interesting to see those questions answered or responded to. I'm sure some other impediment will be quickly cited to block progress.
- 3,433
I agree. St. Louis did everything it could to keep the team. But once they are gone, the general public, who have been lead to believe there will now be a cool $1 billion in cash laying around, will expect the naysayers to get organized and spend that money to lower crime, build on the stadium site, or build an aquarium. First the city will need to cover the $29 million expected shortfall to pay off the dome without the help of tax revenue from Rams fans.
I haven't been following this that closely but I remember when the discussion first started the CVC had a good chunk of money saved up for upcoming renovations. What happened to that money? Also at this point would it have been better to just agree on the original counter by the Rams when they wanted ~7-800 million instead of the 1+ billion we're talking now?
- 8,912
The City would have been on the hook for the entire 700 million where as with this new proposal they're only on the hook for $150 million. The 700 million would have only guaranteed 10 more years in lease agreements from the Rams.
- 488
I don't think so because that $7-$800 Million was all public dollars. No G4 Loan from the NFL, no new PSL sales.flipz wrote:I haven't been following this that closely but I remember when the discussion first started the CVC had a good chunk of money saved up for upcoming renovations. What happened to that money? Also at this point would it have been better to just agree on the original counter by the Rams when they wanted ~7-800 million instead of the 1+ billion we're talking now?
- 3,767
There's no way any sane person, would have agreed to $750 million in renovations, unless the Rams signed a new ironclad 30 year lease. That is the ONLY way. Then they would have had to come up with the money. Had they started this process in 2010, knowing StanK would consider his options, we may have been able to get over the finish line sooner and force his and the NFL's hand. I think it took a bombshell, StanK announcing the stadium in Inglewood, before action was taken on a large scale. I think when he first bought the land and rumors flew, local leaders had a suspicion he would pull this, but nobody really wanted to believe he would really move, being that he is "a Missouri guy, named after Stan the Man". I knew that was bogus. StanK has loyalty to only ONE thing, the almighty dollar!
^^Additionally, there's the lost convention revenue when the building is being rehabbed over a couple years.
So the true cost to rehab the dome per the arbitration is likely close to $1 billion or more, all on the public dime.
So the true cost to rehab the dome per the arbitration is likely close to $1 billion or more, all on the public dime.
- 337
This more-or-less sums up my thoughts on the matter.blzhrpmd2 wrote:I think the reality is that STL will follow about the same path that it has been on, just without football. I'll believe it when I see it that this loss will cause a feel good, unified response from regional leaders to accelerate progress and development.
The other unfortunate part of this is that now the work of the task force will likely continue in some capacity to remain in the conversation for entrance into the NFL in the future. That is unlikely to happen for many years, but they won't just give up entirely. Just like in the late 80s, almost immediately after the Cardinals bolted, work was being done to explore options. A similar scenario will happen here most likely for expansion or owners looking for a better deal. The problem, however, and this is why I disagree that similar problems will face other regions in the future is I don't think many, if any, existing owners truly want to move. We had the misfortune of being saddled with 2 different owners that had transient ties at best to the region.
Once the Rams/NFL are gone, the clock will be ticking for all the naysayers to get things cleaned up. What will be the excuse for crime, lack of police force, poor school trends, and the like without the NFL here? It will be interesting to see those questions answered or responded to. I'm sure some other impediment will be quickly cited to block progress.
I love NFL football; it's easily the greatest spectator sport ever. There are only sixteen games per year, once per week, usually on the weekend so you look forward all week. Every game is so important. Every game is a huge media/party event. The action on the field itself. For fans, it's the best. It's not by accident that it is, by leaps and bounds, the most popular, most powerful sports league in the nation, and one of the biggest in the world.
I love the midwest and its cities; the affordability, the seasonal climate, the combination of the shiny new built on top of the ugly rusty decay. You see it in every mid-sized midwestern city.
St. Louis is the perfect place for me right now. Without the NFL here, suddenly pretty much every mid-sized midwestern city not named St. Louis seems like a much better place for me to live and work. The Rams leaving is definitely going to cause me to rethink things. Pittsburgh and Minneapolis in particular are starting to look really strong to me these days.
- 3,767
Scott Reid, OC Register, just predicted on CBS 920, that Carson wins, with Chargers & Raiders to LA. Kroenke will return to STL for a year and contemplate his next move out of STL, whether that be moving or selling. For what it's worth, that prediction is about the best we can ask for at this stage. He mentioned that he thinks the Chargers and Rams teaming up, while possible, is less likely.
That was the problem. Kroenke wouldn't even agree to a token 2 or 3 year extension to account for the time lost during the renovation and the Rams had to play in Columbia or Champaign.DogtownBnR wrote:There's no way any sane person, would have agreed to $750 million in renovations, unless the Rams signed a new ironclad 30 year lease. That is the ONLY way. Then they would have had to come up with the money. Had they started this process in 2010, knowing StanK would consider his options, we may have been able to get over the finish line sooner and force his and the NFL's hand. I think it took a bombshell, StanK announcing the stadium in Inglewood, before action was taken on a large scale. I think when he first bought the land and rumors flew, local leaders had a suspicion he would pull this, but nobody really wanted to believe he would really move, being that he is "a Missouri guy, named after Stan the Man". I knew that was bogus. StanK has loyalty to only ONE thing, the almighty dollar!
The pro sports market is subject to change at any time. Just because there isn't anything in the pipeline in regards to relocation or expansion doesn't mean that won't change in the near future.
At the end of the day, St. Louis is a TRUE sports city. It loves its sports so whenever the opportunity rises there needs to be plans, potential owners and contingencies in place to POTENTIALLY pounce on the opportunity to nab a relocating pro sports team or expanding league.
It never hurts to be prepared or explore possibilities.
At the end of the day, St. Louis is a TRUE sports city. It loves its sports so whenever the opportunity rises there needs to be plans, potential owners and contingencies in place to POTENTIALLY pounce on the opportunity to nab a relocating pro sports team or expanding league.
It never hurts to be prepared or explore possibilities.
- 3,767
The problem we have is the perception outside of STL. With Ferguson, the Rams and other issues like crime stats, our dirty laundry has been aired for everyone to see. Not to mention, StanK has really made STL look bad. Then stltoday prints an article saying what he said was all true. While I disagree with many of StanK's points in his relo application, there are many out there, that will believe every word. STL has a bad wrap nationally. Then you throw in 'hot markets' that are growing, like San Antonio, it will be tough to get a team down the road.
C'mon man. Don't get mad at those of us who are taking the optimistic take. Even if we would have preferred the stadium to not get built, we had nothing to do with the outcome.blzhrpmd2 wrote:Once the Rams/NFL are gone, the clock will be ticking for all the naysayers to get things cleaned up. What will be the excuse for crime, lack of police force, poor school trends, and the like without the NFL here? It will be interesting to see those questions answered or responded to. I'm sure some other impediment will be quickly cited to block progress.
It's as if in 2 years you want to be able "told you nothing would change, should have kept the Rams." But those of us hoping that this might cause some things to change aren't forcing the Rams out of town. That's the wrong place to point your anger at.
Mound City wrote:St. Louis is the perfect place for me right now. Without the NFL here, suddenly pretty much every mid-sized midwestern city not named St. Louis seems like a much better place for me to live and work. The Rams leaving is definitely going to cause me to rethink things. Pittsburgh and Minneapolis in particular are starting to look really strong to me these days.
We all have our own priorities. If 8 football games in a city per year is enough to make you move, yours are vastly different than mine.
- 337
It's not really about "priorities." I'm compelled to ask: what specifically about St. Louis makes this place a priority for you? I could be mistaken, but unless your answer involves things that are truly irreplaceable and personal to you (all my business contacts are here, all my best friends from childhood are here, I want to be closer to my family, I've already put down roots and my kids love their school, etc.), then I predict that those same things can be found, in spades, in a plethora of other nearby cities.jstriebel wrote:Mound City wrote:St. Louis is the perfect place for me right now. Without the NFL here, suddenly pretty much every mid-sized midwestern city not named St. Louis seems like a much better place for me to live and work. The Rams leaving is definitely going to cause me to rethink things. Pittsburgh and Minneapolis in particular are starting to look really strong to me these days.
We all have our own priorities. If 8 football games in a city per year is enough to make you move, yours are vastly different than mine.
The difference is those cities will probably also have an NFL team.
Where was the article that stltoday agreed with StanK's article? I'm just curious bc all I saw from them was defending the city.DogtownBnR wrote:The problem we have is the perception outside of STL. With Ferguson, the Rams and other issues like crime stats, our dirty laundry has been aired for everyone to see. Not to mention, StanK has really made STL look bad. Then stltoday prints an article saying what he said was all true. While I disagree with many of StanK's points in his relo application, there are many out there, that will believe every word. STL has a bad wrap nationally. Then you throw in 'hot markets' that are growing, like San Antonio, it will be tough to get a team down the road.
They don't have the Cardinals. They don't have the Blues. They don't have the Arch. Or the City Museum. Or the History Museum. They don't have our architecture and our brick buildings. They don't have my family and my family's history. They don't have the hill. Or my own Tower Grove South. They aren't home.Mound City wrote:It's not really about "priorities." I'm compelled to ask: what specifically about St. Louis makes this place a priority for you? I could be mistaken, but unless your answer involves things that are truly irreplaceable and personal to you (all my business contacts are here, all my best friends from childhood are here, I want to be closer to my family, I've already put down roots and my kids love their school, etc.), then I predict that those same things can be found, in spades, in a plethora of other nearby cities.
The difference is those cities will probably also have an NFL team.
You're damn right my answer involves things that are truly irreplaceable and personal. That's what home is to me. And I'll stick around and enjoy the many amazing things it offers and try to be a part of making it that much more amazing.
The disgraceful NFL is but a blip in St. Louis history. And it appears it will be even less than that in it's future. You are generally welcome to your views and priorities and I don't mean to imply otherwise. But I'll be damned if that league or that sport even enters my mind when I consider whether St. Louis is where I want to be.
- 337
The arch? A history museum? Really? :-\
Yeah, you and I are definitely on different pages about this thing.
Yeah, you and I are definitely on different pages about this thing.
Mark Davis is going on the offensive, to try and scare off Jerry Jones. He does not want a team in San Antonio or close to Jerry-World. This could help in the Raiders bid to Carson.
Only a nitwit would consider leaving a city because a low-performing NFL team decided to depart.
When L.A. lost both of its NFL teams, people didn't leave. When Houston lost its team to Nashville, the region still grew in population. When Baltimore lost the Colts then Cleveland lost the Browns (now the Ravens), neither region shriveled up and died.
AND when the lowly-St. Louis Cardinals (Big Red), moved to Phoenix, St. Louis did not die. The Arizona Cardinals haven't been sh*t for most of the time they've been in Arizona. They've been to the SuperBowl once - and lost - since leaving St. Louis and every year they choke in the playoffs. Fu*k them too.
A lot of cities are going to enjoy having their $1-billion taxpayer-funded stadiums with losing teams. Case in point, when was the last time Dallas was in the SuperBowl? I think they have had only one winning season since AT&T Stadium opened in 2009.
It's foolish to suggest because St. Louis is losing the NFL, other cities are being considered more livable and viable. Eight home games a year...............50% of which are lost? St. Louis' prestige hinges on that? Come on.
While I would love to see the NFL either stay or return to St. Louis, what St. Louis needs most is to become a happier city/region - socially, economically, racially etc. And people won't respect St. Louis until locals collectively respect and believe in St. Louis.
When L.A. lost both of its NFL teams, people didn't leave. When Houston lost its team to Nashville, the region still grew in population. When Baltimore lost the Colts then Cleveland lost the Browns (now the Ravens), neither region shriveled up and died.
AND when the lowly-St. Louis Cardinals (Big Red), moved to Phoenix, St. Louis did not die. The Arizona Cardinals haven't been sh*t for most of the time they've been in Arizona. They've been to the SuperBowl once - and lost - since leaving St. Louis and every year they choke in the playoffs. Fu*k them too.
A lot of cities are going to enjoy having their $1-billion taxpayer-funded stadiums with losing teams. Case in point, when was the last time Dallas was in the SuperBowl? I think they have had only one winning season since AT&T Stadium opened in 2009.
It's foolish to suggest because St. Louis is losing the NFL, other cities are being considered more livable and viable. Eight home games a year...............50% of which are lost? St. Louis' prestige hinges on that? Come on.
While I would love to see the NFL either stay or return to St. Louis, what St. Louis needs most is to become a happier city/region - socially, economically, racially etc. And people won't respect St. Louis until locals collectively respect and believe in St. Louis.
Mound City wrote:The arch? A history museum? Really? :-\
Yeah, you and I are definitely on different pages about this thing.
My point is that St. Louis is my city and I embrace the things that we have. My priorities are to improve my city, not to move to the city that has the most.