urbanSTL

If this stadium doesn't happen why would anyone else develop this area? Honest question. I don't recall any substantive plan that was steamrolled for this stadium.

Either he knows his job will be impossible in STL, doesn't want to be in LA, doesn't want to deal with Stan's mess or really does want to go home to Tampa. It's probably a combination of all of the above.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1421353956

^ maybe they have better hair product in Tampa!

^^ there is no single silver bullet plan for the area but there area a variety of programs/initiatives/investments going on in addition to the businesses that are already there.

roger wyoming II wrote:So how do we incorporate this into an NFL version of this?

Simple. Just move the Mississippi River.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ maybe they have better hair product in Tampa!

^^ there is no single silver bullet plan for the area but there area a variety of programs/initiatives/investments going on in addition to the businesses that are already there.

Which is probably the healthiest way to do it, generally.

An article about why destroying out urban fabric for a redundant stadium is the wrong idea.

http://www.courant.com/business/dan-haa ... story.html

I also posted this in the ntl media thread. Sorry bout that.

Forgive me if this has been covered as I have not sifted through the past weeks 30 pages of stuff -

How hard would it be to move this 1 block north, save about 250,000 SF of good old building stock for "Football Village" (add your own eye roll here), and tear down the city work house for parking - Do we really want a jail next to the stadium given our national rep?

For the older folks I can remember when the old city holding cells were still next to the newly opened Kiel Center and the inmates screamed at the top of their lungs when folks were entering the building during the 95 playoff run

And the plot thickens. MLS commish in town to discuss a stl team and now NFL is officially on record saying if the new stadium is built the Rams stay

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... witterfeed

^ I'm underwhelmed by that NFL statement... we already know there will be no stadium built if we don't have a commited team. So nothing has changed. If he said they will not allow the Rams to move if a stadium is built despite Stan's intent to go that would be a bit different.

Yeah, that doesn't say that a new stadium keeps the Rams. It says there is no chance the Rams will stay without a new stadium. Basically stuff we already knew, although I don't think it's abad thing that officials are finally acknowledging realities.

Pretty sure that at this point I'd rather just see a soccer-specific stadium built at the same location. Needs less parking so you can save the buildings. Needs to be less in general, so you can save a lot of money.

And if there's an owner that at some point likes the idea of St. Louis, then they can see if there's a way to build a football stadium in a better spot for a football stadium. (This spot is a fine spot IF a sea of surface parkings isn't required. But if it is, I'm not a huge fan.)

I really don't put much into what the NFL says at this point let alone their bylaws until Stan K/Rams announce a year to year least at Rose Bowl, or any other LA area stadium as a holdover location. I think Dallas owner has it right. The only thing holding back an LA move at this point is a place to play until a stadium is built. Stan K holds the franchise and their is no owner who holds claim to LA let alone remotely closes to putting together a stadium deal.

Then when the moving vans pull up it is almost pointless what NFL has to say other then announcing a St Louis franchise expansion team. In the meantime, I think Stan K/Rams will wait til last moment to sign a year lease in St. Louis for the 2015 playing season while selling tickets because it is the place they can play at the moment.

As far as MLS. Good move. I think the reality is some of the other proposed expansion teams still need to put together legit stadium plans. In the meantime, why not show up in St. Louis?

dbInSouthCity wrote:And the plot thickens. MLS commish in town to discuss a stl team and now NFL is officially on record saying if the new stadium is built the Rams stay

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... witterfeed

I'm actually really encouraged by this.

C'mon, Peacock, get it done...

I think it's clear that they will lay out in a meeting with Peacock what needs to happen and it's simple again. New stadium + more corprate support at the dome and in the new stadium when it opens

Stan Kroenke doesn't want to be here, and until he says otherwise or the NFL guarantees they stay if St. Louis lives up to their part of the deal, then I'm not really holding my breath on anything.

It's all the more complicated by the fact that I don't really care for the site plan of this stadium or the amount of public funds involved. (And we'll just leave out the fact that I think the sport of football is too dangerous for me to feel good about watching it, and that the NFL is a generally despicable organization.)

So yeah, the blindly loyal sports fan hopes they stay, but I'm not feeling real strong about the logistics from multiple angles.

That's pure speculation. Nobody knows what stan wants. Vikings owner wanted to move to LA, it took Goodall going there and telling him no you aren't and get back to the table with Minneapolis. from listening to Grubmans interview on KMOX today. NFL wants the Rams here and is here to help make sure that happens. It's clear that it's up to st.louis to put a project together and nothing else

http://download.podcast.play.it/media/d ... 000000GW02

I think you've got it backwards. The Vikings owner wanted to stay in Minnesota, but wasn't getting the help he was looking for. Goodell flew to Minnesota to meet with the state legislature to get them to pass a bill swindling the taxpayers!

Stan's intentions are relatively clear at this point. The league could make that a moot point, I just don't believe that will be the case right now.

^ I agree the Vikings and Kroenke situations aren't nearly the same, but I do agree with dbl's take that the NFL would like to see the situation work itself out in Saint Louis and have the Rams remain. What time frame that would have to happen in before the NFL would be comfortable with the Kroenk moving the team is t.b.d.

There's an incredible amount of speculation on this thread about what Stan Kronke wants or is doing. This is why he's constantly silent. Though mostly thought of as a negative leadership style, silence is highly effective as a negation tool. Nobody knows where this dude is coming from.

Something that people semi ignore that I'm sure Stan is spending a lot of time on is his cross-ownership issue-

some background- Stan owns the Denver Nuggests (NBA) and Colorado Avalanche (NHL, based in Denver) and NFL rules say you CANNOT own teams in a different market that also has a NFL team (Denver has the broncos) this only became a issue when Stan got a majority of the Rams in 2010...and the NFL owners voted to give him 4 years to solve it and last Oct gave him a 1 year extension

heard people say well he can just "sell" or "gift" the teams to his son Josh...yes he can and legally that means his son is now worth $1.1-1.4 billion (worth of those teams +pepsi center) and that means legally Stan is now worth less by that much....not to mention that 38% in taxes his son would have to pay on that if its "gifted" (any "gift" over 10K is taxable) and the taxes Stan would have to pay if he "sells" to Josh.... this also raises another problem for Stan...despite being worth $5B ($4B of that is "value" of Rams, Arsenal, Nuggets, Avs, Rapids, pepsi center ect, so his sports teams) he still needs loans to move to LA, the stadium alone is projected at $2B + relocation fee ect...by giving the Colorado teams to his son he loses collateral for those loans....its a very complicated situation that Stan would have to solve before moving to LA.