City vs Rams Lawsuit

roger wyoming II · PostJan 16, 2015#6262015-01-16T15:39+00:00

^ it is like both sides were presented with different, but equally complex obstacle courses. Earlier I joked that the obvious result is a move to London, but now I'm thinking the obvious result is that they'll keep extending a year-to-year lease until Stan dies or the EJD falls down.

DogtownBnR · PostJan 16, 2015#6272015-01-16T16:47+00:00

Slay~ STL to make it difficult for Rams to move... Slay feeling more confident after Task Force meeting with NFL.....

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1421426775

dweebe · PostJan 16, 2015#6282015-01-16T17:10+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:Slay~ STL to make it difficult for Rams to move... Slay feeling more confident after Task Force meeting with NFL.....

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1421426775

Two possibities here on Friday 1/16:
-things aren't as doom and gloom as it seemed 10 days ago
-the league was successful in blowing smoke and Slay bought it

Greatest St. Louis · PostJan 16, 2015#6292015-01-16T17:21+00:00

Excellent to see Slay and Nixon throw their unequivocal support behind the stadium plan. I naturally expect Stenger to remain less committal because he's only been in office for like 15 days, whereas Slay is working on his 4th term as Mayor and Nixon is being term-limited out of office after this term.

PostJan 16, 2015#6302015-01-16T17:25+00:00

dweebe wrote:
DogtownBnR wrote:Slay~ STL to make it difficult for Rams to move... Slay feeling more confident after Task Force meeting with NFL.....

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1421426775
Two possibities here on Friday 1/16:
-things aren't as doom and gloom as it seemed 10 days ago
-the league was successful in blowing smoke and Slay bought it

Yep, and there's absolutely no way for us to be certain of which possibility is the reality here on Friday 1/16.

That said, as of now I'm adopting the former position, because if the league were just blowing smoke, they could send emails, or conference call, or whatever. They didn't need to send their senior vice president to St. Louis on a Thursday in December and then another Thursday in January to sit in meetings with area politicians, business leaders, and Post-Dispatch journalists for no reason but to create the veneer that their intent is to work with St. Louis on this.

But, yes, you are right, the latter possibility may very well be the reality, too. Maybe the NFL really is just that dedicated to making it look like they're trying for us.

dweebe · PostJan 16, 2015#6312015-01-16T18:14+00:00

Per Twitter:

101espn ‏@101espn
@ClaytonESPN tells @101ESPNFastLane owners will likely block Kroenke's plans to move #STLRams http://bit.ly/1wggEIt

Greatest St. Louis · PostJan 16, 2015#6322015-01-16T18:19+00:00

dweebe wrote:Per Twitter:

101espn ‏@101espn
@ClaytonESPN tells @101ESPNFastLane owners will likely block Kroenke's plans to move #STLRams http://bit.ly/1wggEIt

I wonder how good Clayton's speculation is.

gary kreie · PostJan 16, 2015#6332015-01-16T18:32+00:00

RAM PSL Bill of Rights.
I bought a 30 year PSL in 1995 and kept it 19 years. I dropped it last year after I couldn't get a straight answer from Kevin Demoff or Matt Cady about the status of the Rams for 2015.
Before I would buy another one, I want a PSL holders Bill of Rights.
1. Team owner must reimburse full PSL cost if team leaves before 30 years. All tricky out-language must be revealed, if any.
2. None of my money can go to NFL owners or the Rams owner. Just stadium.
3. I can get out of my PSL at the 10-year or 20-year point with 2/3 or 1/3 reimbursement if the Rams are not in the upper 1/4 tier of NFL teams as measured by their won-loss record over that period of time.
4. Rams are moved to a new division where opponents are not the furthest away in the NFL -- preferably NFC North or AFC North.

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostJan 16, 2015#6342015-01-16T18:58+00:00

gary kreie wrote:RAM PSL Bill of Rights.

4. Rams are moved to a new division where opponents are not the furthest away in the NFL -- preferably NFC North or AFC North.

Neither North Division is going to get realigned, they're perfect as they are.

Realistically, the two West divisions just need to shuffle some teams and everything would be good.

Seattle-SF-Oakland-San Diego in one West
KC-Denver-STL-Arizona in the other West

I don't know who would block that move. ( I suppose you could swap out Arizona with one of the two Bay Area teams to make sure that market is split)

gary kreie · PostJan 16, 2015#6352015-01-16T21:30+00:00

ricke002 wrote:
gary kreie wrote:RAM PSL Bill of Rights.

4. Rams are moved to a new division where opponents are not the furthest away in the NFL -- preferably NFC North or AFC North.
Neither North Division is going to get realigned, they're perfect as they are.

Realistically, the two West divisions just need to shuffle some teams and everything would be good.

Seattle-SF-Oakland-San Diego in one West
KC-Denver-STL-Arizona in the other West

I don't know who would block that move. ( I suppose you could swap out Arizona with one of the two Bay Area teams to make sure that market is split)

I disagree. Isn't Dallas further West than St. Louis? Put Dallas in the NFC West, St. Louis in the AFC North, and Baltimore in the NFC East. Has any sport ever put any team further from all of its division rivals than what the NFL did to St. Louis? They had a chance to fix this in the last realignment, but why anger Dallas and Jerry when St. Louis fans are easy targets.

STLEnginerd · PostJan 16, 2015#6362015-01-16T21:39+00:00

^because the Rams make more money when Dallas plays the Giants that when then the Rams play the Giants at home.

Greatest St. Louis · PostJan 16, 2015#6372015-01-16T21:41+00:00

gary kreie wrote:
ricke002 wrote:
gary kreie wrote:RAM PSL Bill of Rights.

4. Rams are moved to a new division where opponents are not the furthest away in the NFL -- preferably NFC North or AFC North.
Neither North Division is going to get realigned, they're perfect as they are.

Realistically, the two West divisions just need to shuffle some teams and everything would be good.

Seattle-SF-Oakland-San Diego in one West
KC-Denver-STL-Arizona in the other West

I don't know who would block that move. ( I suppose you could swap out Arizona with one of the two Bay Area teams to make sure that market is split)
I disagree. Isn't Dallas further West than St. Louis? Put Dallas in the NFC West, St. Louis in the AFC North, and Baltimore in the NFC East. Has any sport ever put any team further from all of its division rivals than what the NFL did to St. Louis? They had a chance to fix this in the last realignment, but why anger Dallas and Jerry when St. Louis fans are easy targets.

The NFL prefers to keep historic rivalries intact. That's why we're still in the same division as the 49ers, the Cowboys are still in the same division as the Redskins and Giants, the Chiefs are in the same division as the Raiders, etc.

gary kreie · PostJan 16, 2015#6382015-01-16T21:42+00:00

The guy at this link did a study on optimal re-alignment of the NFL, first with no constraints, and then with a variety of artificial constraints such as keeping the current NFC and AFC teams, or keeping existing major rivalries.

http://eaton.math.rpi.edu/faculty/mitch ... tions.html

Here is his overall optimal:

I see new better rivalries from this. SF/Oakland, Dallas/Phoenix, KC/StLouis, Washington/Baltimore. Old rivalries like Dallas/Washington, St. Louis /SF, St. Louis /Arizona, KC/Oakland, are kaput.

9ine Runner · PostJan 16, 2015#6392015-01-16T21:50+00:00

St. Louis Rams, Indy Colts, Cincy Bengals, and Nashville Titans has always been my preferred division.

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostJan 16, 2015#6402015-01-16T21:54+00:00

STLEnginerd wrote:^because the Rams make more money when Dallas plays the Giants that when then the Rams play the Giants at home.

Exactly. At this point, the disruption of rivalries would also be important. Dallas is fairly well ingrained as an NFC East team with healthy rivalries against the Giants and Washington's NFL team. Similarly, I think the idea of KC and STL in the same division would be better for the NFL than STL vs CLE/CIN/PIT.

9ine Runner · PostJan 16, 2015#6412015-01-16T21:55+00:00

gary kreie wrote:The guy at this link did a study on optimal re-alignment of the NFL, first with no constraints, and then with a variety of artificial constraints such as keeping the current NFC and AFC teams, or keeping existing major rivalries.

http://eaton.math.rpi.edu/faculty/mitch ... tions.html

Here is his overall optimal:

I love doing realignments

SD SF OAK SEA
DAL AZ KC DEN
HOU NO TB MIA
STL IND CIN NSH
CHI MIN GB DET
BAL PIT CLE NYJ
NYG NE BUF PHI
WAS JAX ATL CHA

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostJan 16, 2015#6422015-01-16T21:56+00:00

gary kreie wrote:The guy at this link did a study on optimal re-alignment of the NFL, first with no constraints, and then with a variety of artificial constraints such as keeping the current NFC and AFC teams, or keeping existing major rivalries.

http://eaton.math.rpi.edu/faculty/mitch ... tions.html

Here is his overall optimal:

In no world does it make sense to break up CHI-GB and NYG-DAL. This map accomplishes both of those breakups.

Greatest St. Louis · PostJan 16, 2015#6432015-01-16T21:57+00:00

arch_genesis wrote:St. Louis Rams, Indy Colts, Cincy Bengals, and Nashville Titans has always been my preferred division.

Switch out the Bengals with the Chiefs, and you've got my dream division. Each of those cities can be reached by car in 4.5 hours or less

9ine Runner · PostJan 16, 2015#6442015-01-16T22:18+00:00

Greatest St. Louis wrote:
arch_genesis wrote:St. Louis Rams, Indy Colts, Cincy Bengals, and Nashville Titans has always been my preferred division.
Switch out the Bengals with the Chiefs, and you've got my dream division. Each of those cities can be reached by car in 4.5 hours or less

I'm lukewarm on the idea of a being in a division with the Chiefs. My thinking is, recreating the NFC East with a division that makes a little more sense for the Cowboys. I believe Washington is going to change its name and the Chiefs could take their place in the offensive(?) "Cowboys and Indians" rivalry. Plus the Chiefs used to be the Dallas Texans. If the Chargers and Raiders moved to LA, the Chargers could replace New York. And well the Broncos, well Denver could be bizarro Philly. Or the LA Raiders could play the role of Philly and Denver could just be Denver.

DAL KC (LA) DEN. Since Jerry loves LA so much maybe he won't mind being in a division with them.

STLEnginerd · PostJan 16, 2015#6452015-01-16T22:35+00:00

St. Louis Rams, Indy Colts, Cincy Bengals, and Nashville Titans has always been my preferred division

Acheived simply by moving the Rams to LA and Jacksonville to St. Louis. At that point the only strangely distant teams in their division are the Cowboys and the Dolphins both of which are there for simple financial reasons.

If only we could ever be confident in such a scheme happening, unfortunately we can't.

urban_dilettante · PostJan 16, 2015#6462015-01-16T23:31+00:00

dweebe wrote:Outside of the McGwire/Bottle District lot, none of the parking is what I'd consider downtown. Plus there are dozens of lots actually downtown that we should battle for development.

does it really matter if it's technically downtown or just adjacent to downtown? our goal should be to reduce the amount of surface parking overall, not maintain it by building on some lots and then creating new lots to replace them. this city consists of a few urban islands afloat in an ocean of parking, and this stadium plan only perpetuates that. look, i get it. you like football. you want a pro football team. however, there is absolutely no light in which this plan looks like smart development, either from an urban perspective or an economic perspective.

Greatest St. Louis · PostJan 16, 2015#6472015-01-16T23:55+00:00

Like I said, I don't begrudge the people who are okay with sacrificing the NFL/our shot at bringing the MLS here, in exchange for the potential of a handful of extra old abandoned buildings maybe getting some lofts/trendy restaurants/bars put in over the next 25 years. I get it.

But big picture, St. Louis is gonna be what it is, whether or not this stadium proposal goes through, and whether or not the Rams stay. I'd rather it be what it is with an NFL (and possibly MLS) team, than what it is without.

matguy70 · PostJan 17, 2015#6482015-01-17T02:14+00:00

I second that opinion above.

I remember when these boards started with STLrising years ago - back then most posters were very supportive for any "big league" growth in the city. Now, it seems like so many are anti-this and that and would strike down any "big league" to keep STL growing as a "big league" city to sacrifice a parking lot.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 17, 2015#6492015-01-17T05:16+00:00

Greatest St. Louis wrote:
roger wyoming II wrote: Again, it might be possible to fit in a stadium and still get decent urban form (see Banks, etc.) but in general, look at where all these single-use NFL stadiums are being placed in more healthy cities in the past few years.... Boston, San Fran, D.C., Philadelphia, etc. That should tell us something.
what should it tell us? In that same timeframe, we've seen stadiums built in Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. on the edges of downtown, right next to the highway and/or body of water... just like ours.

In one respect, it clearly tells us that more healthy cities like Boston, San Fran, D.C., Philly, etc. generally know something that the less healthy, rust belt AFC Central cities of Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincy and Baltimore don't... don't put large footprint, limited use stadiums in your center city.

And on closer inspection, our peer cities you cited also have much better site plans than what Peacock proposes for us. Each of those has much less parking than ours and the Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Cincy riverfront stadium areas have many more attractions served by that parking. Parking for Baltimore's stadium is shared with the adjacent Camden Yards and the site plan easily could have axed warehouses just a couple hundred feet from the stadium. The parking plan Peacock proffered is pathetic. We can do better and need to do better.

realclear · PostJan 17, 2015#6502015-01-17T15:49+00:00

I know it's a pipe dream, but there's sooo much green space available in East St. Louis. There has to be at least the same amount of space as all of Downtown STL occupies.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/East+ ... 65674cc6d0

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode