^uhh no.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 3,433
- 3,762
1) What was the context?? Did he/she say it at a cocktail party, or was it a conclusion published in a peer-reviewed research paper?gary kreie wrote:The dome and the region are two different things. An UMSL economist said it might be better economically to have no sports teams in St Louis. Should that be the goal?
2) One economist does not a consensus make.
3) Not all sports teams are created equal in terms of investment by the tax payer vs return to the taxpayer.
- 3,433
She said it at the north riverfront stadium site outdoor alderman committee gathering arguing for no city stadium funding.urban_dilettante wrote:1) What was the context?? Did he/she say it at a cocktail party, or was it a conclusion published in a peer-reviewed research paper?gary kreie wrote:The dome and the region are two different things. An UMSL economist said it might be better economically to have no sports teams in St Louis. Should that be the goal?
2) One economist does not a consensus make.
3) Not all sports teams are created equal in terms of investment by the tax payer vs return to the taxpayer.
A lot of people argued we would be better off economically with the Rams gone. She went a step further and said we'd likely be better off economically with all teams gone. So when I hear folks say, no -- not all teams. Then is 2 teams the right number for you? 3? 1? if its not zero? Most cities our size don't look at team/conventions as either/or. They go for both.
Considering the NFL's ratings drop, San Diego's decision to vote against funding a new stadium seems rational.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/sport ... adium.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/sport ... adium.html
So Chargers sign a stadium lease with Stan K for x years @ $100 million which is the amount they are suppose to get I believe for not making a stadium with Raiders in LA. Would that be about right? Maybe not the whole amount but have to admit it was a pretty slick deal worked out by Stan K/Jerry Jones so Chargers would end up in a new stadium one way or another, new stadium in San Diego and in Inglewood with lease covered by NFL/rest of owners.hebeters2 wrote:Considering the NFL's ratings drop, San Diego's decision to vote against funding a new stadium seems rational.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/sport ... adium.html
I'm absolutely positive convinced that behind closed doors that the owners also agreed to lift the Vegas/Gambling taboo and gave Davis first shot at making a play to move the Raiders there in return for killing the Raiders/Charges LA stadium proposal. All is needed now is an owners meeting to sign off on Chargers and Raiders respective stadium moves.
- 103
I bet the NFL backs off their hard stance on gambling as well.
In regards to our old stadium, Im not sure what the plans look like if the convention center gets the money to expand but i would like to see them keep the Dome. I think it is in perfectly fine shape to still hold events, concerts, and i would love to see STL get a college football bowl game somehow to be played there. Maybe even another final four if we can pull that off again also.
In regards to our old stadium, Im not sure what the plans look like if the convention center gets the money to expand but i would like to see them keep the Dome. I think it is in perfectly fine shape to still hold events, concerts, and i would love to see STL get a college football bowl game somehow to be played there. Maybe even another final four if we can pull that off again also.
- 2,430
^ I haven't heard any talk of demolishing the Dome but assuming they don't it still will be interesting to see what plans they have for the place... don't really know for sure if it's possible, but it might make more sense to spend the $$ to make for a more attractive but perhaps smaller capacity venue as opposed to trying to keep it viable for landing the infrequent event needing 50,000+ capacity.
- 3,433
Just a suggestion. How about making a flat white ceiling hanging a few inches below steel roof grid indoors -- using acoustic ceiling tile or whatever. (stay with me here.) Get rid of the lights that can be lowered altogether.
![]()
Then project scenes directly onto the white ceiling tiles from below, not unlike what Union Station does, to show any scene you desire. A daytime virtual sky might be the default, with clouds and the sun moving across it just as they are outside. But of course you could do any scene, such a night sky, planetarium style, stadium on Mars view, dragons flying over the stadium, a video of the Atlanta stadium roof opening up, Sistine Chapel ceiling, geodesic dome, dinosaurs looking into the dome, etc. So some of the graphics other arenas use in rings around the stadium seating area for dramatic effects, could be multiplied many times over on the giant ceiling.
![]()
![]()
Like the projections onto the stadium floor in Rio, only up rather than down. Actually, they could do down too.
![]()
With no windows, the Dome can take advantage of the ability to control light and make the roof anything it wants, or a bright as it wants.
Then project scenes directly onto the white ceiling tiles from below, not unlike what Union Station does, to show any scene you desire. A daytime virtual sky might be the default, with clouds and the sun moving across it just as they are outside. But of course you could do any scene, such a night sky, planetarium style, stadium on Mars view, dragons flying over the stadium, a video of the Atlanta stadium roof opening up, Sistine Chapel ceiling, geodesic dome, dinosaurs looking into the dome, etc. So some of the graphics other arenas use in rings around the stadium seating area for dramatic effects, could be multiplied many times over on the giant ceiling.
Like the projections onto the stadium floor in Rio, only up rather than down. Actually, they could do down too.
With no windows, the Dome can take advantage of the ability to control light and make the roof anything it wants, or a bright as it wants.
- 3,433
- 249
That's ok, I hear the old occupant skipped town to pursue his dreams in Tinseltown.
Kroenke's major-league football, basketball, and hockey teams are a combined 20 -34 -1 this year.
Go, Fisher: Rams Without a Clue
-RBBBut somehow [Fisher] has managed this elaborate and kind of amazing shell game, especially with the Rams. He needed time with quarterback Sam Bradford, the first player taken in the draft two seasons before Fisher became head coach. Now he needs time with rookie quarterback Jared Goff, the first pick in the draft. He keeps buying time as the Rams keep buying what he's selling. Famously, though, Fisher said on HBO's "Hard Knocks" that he "was not f---ing going 7-9….or 8-8….. or 9-7, OK?"
You bet! Totally!
If you want to have a rollicking good read, check out Ryan Van Bibber's piece at SB Nation about the litany of excuses Fisher has produced over time as he has attempted to explain away his own record. A huckster like this was made for reality TV.
But then he is working for the huckster -- Kroenke -- who not only took the Rams out of St. Louis, but effectively killed pro football in a truly great American sports city forever. Art Modell didn't do that to Cleveland when he took the Browns to Baltimore. Robert Irsay didn't do that to Baltimore, obviously, when he took the Colts to Indianapolis, because Baltimore was the team formerly known as the Browns.
- 3,433
Interesting piece in today's Post about the EJ Dome and proposed updates to the convention center.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 75bdc.html
With regard to MLS use:
"Ratcliffe said it would cost hundreds of millions more to retrofit it for professional soccer. Artificial turf is essentially a non-starter for the league, and installing grass would require removing the roof and rebuilding the deep concrete surface beneath the playing area to include drainage and irrigation systems.
“Anything is possible, but does it make financial sense to do that?” Ratcliffe said.
About 54,000 fans packed the Dome for an exhibition game between European soccer power houses Real Madrid and Inter Milan in 2013. However, the natural grass playing surface that was brought in for it was dead in a matter of days, Ratcliffe said."
Is this really a non-starter? How much would it really cost to bring in new turf for each MLS game, and keep it alive in place, or cart it outside and then back in just for each MLS game? Busch seems to do that for big events without blinking an eye. Could they not lower that light grid to just above the turf with daylight lighting & a few sprinklers to keep the grass alive? Does only the sun work? I would think over 30 years, it would cost a lot less than $100 million to cart the turf out and back in for each MLS game, no matter how inelegant that might seem to the general public. We sometimes forget about brute force as a better cheaper solution.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 75bdc.html
With regard to MLS use:
"Ratcliffe said it would cost hundreds of millions more to retrofit it for professional soccer. Artificial turf is essentially a non-starter for the league, and installing grass would require removing the roof and rebuilding the deep concrete surface beneath the playing area to include drainage and irrigation systems.
“Anything is possible, but does it make financial sense to do that?” Ratcliffe said.
About 54,000 fans packed the Dome for an exhibition game between European soccer power houses Real Madrid and Inter Milan in 2013. However, the natural grass playing surface that was brought in for it was dead in a matter of days, Ratcliffe said."
Is this really a non-starter? How much would it really cost to bring in new turf for each MLS game, and keep it alive in place, or cart it outside and then back in just for each MLS game? Busch seems to do that for big events without blinking an eye. Could they not lower that light grid to just above the turf with daylight lighting & a few sprinklers to keep the grass alive? Does only the sun work? I would think over 30 years, it would cost a lot less than $100 million to cart the turf out and back in for each MLS game, no matter how inelegant that might seem to the general public. We sometimes forget about brute force as a better cheaper solution.
By the way, I was watching Oklahoma State annihilate Colorado in the Alamodome in San Antonio on TV last week. The Alamodome was built in 1993. I couldn't help noticing that the field and the stands were much brighter on my TV than what we ever saw in the EJ Dome. It looked like an daytime game on TV when you saw just the field. A couple of times, the announcers thought the receiver may have lost the ball in the lights. But the point is -- could we get whoever did the lighting for the Alamadome to do the same for the EJ Dome, (or should I say EJ Dim.)
^^ Thanks for posting story Gary but should we be going with a new thread for EJ Dome Post RAMS? or maybe change name of thread?
- 1,292
While the grass issue is one aspect, MLS requires that the playing field be open-air or at a minimum have a retractable roof. I've heard that the cost of removing the roof or implementing a retractable roof would alone cost more than the entire proposed stadium.gary kreie wrote: Is this really a non-starter? How much would it really cost to bring in new turf for each MLS game, and keep it alive in place, or cart it outside and then back in just for each MLS game? Busch seems to do that for big events without blinking an eye. Could they not lower that light grid to just above the turf with daylight lighting & a few sprinklers to keep the grass alive? Does only the sun work? I would think over 30 years, it would cost a lot less than $100 million to cart the turf out and back in for each MLS game, no matter how inelegant that might seem to the general public. We sometimes forget about brute force as a better cheaper solution.
Why do so many people want soccer to be played in the dome? I've been to many soccer games around the country and the ones in the dome are by far the worst. Going out to Fenton and watching STLFC provides a better atmosphere for a match. I'd rather stay in the second division then have a MLS team in the dome. Can we please move on from the dome? It will never happen.
Places like San Antonio and Atlanta don't have to build roofs that support once every 50 year snowstorms like St. Louis did.gary kreie wrote:By the way, I was watching Oklahoma State annihilate Colorado in the Alamodome in San Antonio on TV last week. The Alamodome was built in 1993. I couldn't help noticing that the field and the stands were much brighter on my TV than what we ever saw in the EJ Dome. It looked like an daytime game on TV when you saw just the field. A couple of times, the announcers thought the receiver may have lost the ball in the lights. But the point is -- could we get whoever did the lighting for the Alamadome to do the same for the EJ Dome, (or should I say EJ Dim.)
- 3,433
Snicker snicker...NFL TV ratings in Los Angeles actually went DOWN after the Rams moved there.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 34ebc.html
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 34ebc.html
^ I think the real answer is when they are in their new stadium. At the moment, the team is terrible and the stadium is truly needs a 100,000 people to be a fan experience.
To me the big question, will Stan K invest in the coaches/players once they are in Ingleside or will he truly continue to be one of the worst pro team owners in history? Doesn't matter which sport or league whether it be in LA, Denver or across the pond he has the money to field great teams. But we know the history otherwise
To me the big question, will Stan K invest in the coaches/players once they are in Ingleside or will he truly continue to be one of the worst pro team owners in history? Doesn't matter which sport or league whether it be in LA, Denver or across the pond he has the money to field great teams. But we know the history otherwise