urbanSTL

Rams officially go year-to-year:

Does this mean anything? I think their rent is only $500k. Doesn't cost them much to still leave this year.

It doesn't mean anything. Doesn't rule anything out either, but this was simply expected and the deadline was this week.

I see very, very little chance the Rams stick around.

And as I sit here watching the documentary "League of Denial," I'm reminded of one of the many reasons that I'm pretty okay with that. The NFL is a despicable organization.

I think the Rams are gone and have thought that for a long time. I got 'some' hope when Dave Peacock released the renderings. However, we all know the NFL is not going to keep the Rams in STL, through their bylaws. I think he will go rogue, even if he is saying he will not. The 'fight' between Stan and the NFL will be nothing more than a dog and pony show, to prove the NFL will in fact, put up a fight to honor it's bylaws. In the end, Stan will get to LA and the NFL will be happy about that. He is presenting a truly viable option for the league and it's LA problem. I think the Rams exit stage left after the lame duck 2015 season. It will be a HUGE black eye on St. Louis, all of the empty seats on national TV, assuming the games are not blacked out, which would be for the better. Imagine if they are competitive and make the playoffs and the place is still half empty. Stan will make sure to get the ball rolling to avoid 2 lame-duck seasons. That's a given. He is probably already talking behind the scenes, to one of the current facilities in LA, Rose Bowl or Coliseum. I think our only hope is that the NFL sees STL as a viable "NFL city" and gives us the Cleveland treatment. I don't think anyone in the NFL holds STL in the same regard as Cleveland and the faithful Dog Pound. In other words, we lose the Rams, we probably lose football for good or at least for a long, long time.

StlToday Ap - Big bet on sports proves costly for Super Bowl host city

What may be not visible amid all the hoopla is a sobering reality about the Super Bowl host city: Glendale is suffering deep financial issues over its troubled effort to become a sports destination.

http://m.stltoday.com/business/local/bi ... a054b.html

I'm not sure Glendale AZ to St. Louis is even close to an apples to apples comparison. Glendale made series of moves to be a sports mecca. Phoenix was never going to be a great NHL market. That should have never happened. That was their first mistake. Second, people are going to spend their money in Phoenix, not Glendale. PHX has all of the amenities to offer tourists. With the STL project, the bonus for us is the fact that it opens up the Dome for more conventions, more revenue and more money to do renovations to get it up to snuff, with regards to competing cities. It could also attract MLS, international soccer events (World Cup, EPL summer tours, friendlies, etc.) as well as other non sporting events. I think the ONLY downside is the loss of historic buildings. I'm willing to make that trade-off, to keep us an NFL city, increase convention traffic, hopefully get Dome/convention improvements done and get MLS & other events here.

DogtownBnR wrote:I think the Rams are gone and have thought that for a long time. I got 'some' hope when Dave Peacock released the renderings. However, we all know the NFL is not going to keep the Rams in STL, through their bylaws. I think he will go rogue, even if he is saying he will not. The 'fight' between Stan and the NFL will be nothing more than a dog and pony show, to prove the NFL will in fact, put up a fight to honor it's bylaws. In the end, Stan will get to LA and the NFL will be happy about that. He is presenting a truly viable option for the league and it's LA problem. I think the Rams exit stage left after the lame duck 2015 season. It will be a HUGE black eye on St. Louis, all of the empty seats on national TV, assuming the games are not blacked out, which would be for the better. Imagine if they are competitive and make the playoffs and the place is still half empty. Stan will make sure to get the ball rolling to avoid 2 lame-duck seasons. That's a given. He is probably already talking behind the scenes, to one of the current facilities in LA, Rose Bowl or Coliseum. I think our only hope is that the NFL sees STL as a viable "NFL city" and gives us the Cleveland treatment. I don't think anyone in the NFL holds STL in the same regard as Cleveland and the faithful Dog Pound. In other words, we lose the Rams, we probably lose football for good or at least for a long, long time.

It may be awkward but it's definately not embarrassing to have a half empty stadium nor does it make us look bad in the eyes of the NFL. The guys who say otherwise are the sports talk radio guys who will suddenly have 1/3rd less to talk about. It's their job to convince you to stay interested.

DogtownBnR wrote:I'm not sure Glendale AZ to St. Louis is even close to an apples to apples comparison. Glendale made series of moves to be a sports mecca. Phoenix was never going to be a great NHL market. That should have never happened. That was their first mistake. Second, people are going to spend their money in Phoenix, not Glendale. PHX has all of the amenities to offer tourists. With the STL project, the bonus for us is the fact that it opens up the Dome for more conventions, more revenue and more money to do renovations to get it up to snuff, with regards to competing cities. It could also attract MLS, international soccer events (World Cup, EPL summer tours, friendlies, etc.) as well as other non sporting events. I think the ONLY downside is the loss of historic buildings. I'm willing to make that trade-off, to keep us an NFL city, increase convention traffic, hopefully get Dome/convention improvements done and get MLS & other events here.

I understand what you're saying, I really do.

But we need to stop talking about getting more conventions in the Dome as a positive of building the new stadium. The Rams are finished in the Dome anyways. It's going to be open for more conventions in the next few years regardless of what city the Rams call home.

^However, the Dome is being passed up for other cities (our competition) for top national conventions, due to the Dome being outdated and in need of an increase in convention space. I think extending the bonds could assist in getting the Dome up to snuff as well. I am not 100% sure the Dome will benefit from Peacock's plan, but I was of the understanding the Dome would be upgraded. Not only is the Dome outdated for football, but it is outdated for sizable conventions. That is a fact that cannot be overlooked. I would assume, with the Rams out, the CVC can focus on making needed improvements. The hotel tax and extra tax revenue generated by NFL and MLS related events, can benefit the Dome as well.

I don't doubt the Dome needs some renovations and improvements even for conventions, but I'm sure we can manage to come up with the bit of money necessary for that without tying it to $400 million in other spending.

There's so many more sad things here.

Stl Today - Editorial: A new football stadium requires a vote

For all of that, Mr. Peacock said, “most of the people I encounter like (the new stadium idea). Positive people don't write letters to the editor. If that's a reflection of our community, it's sad. As someone who grew up here, if the community is that negative, I question why I raise my children here.”

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/co ... b18ab.html

Dweebe, that came to light during interviews, after losing our bid for a Final 4. I specifically remember Kitty and the St. Louis Sports Commission reps saying that the Dome / convention center is now behind peer cities, with regards to attracting big national conventions ,as well as events like the Final 4. You'd have to dig around for articles around the time we lost our bid for the Final 4 several months back.

quincunx wrote:There's so many more sad things here.

Stl Today - Editorial: A new football stadium requires a vote

For all of that, Mr. Peacock said, “most of the people I encounter like (the new stadium idea). Positive people don't write letters to the editor. If that's a reflection of our community, it's sad. As someone who grew up here, if the community is that negative, I question why I raise my children here.”

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/co ... b18ab.html

Honestly, I agree completely with Mr. Peacock, and I didn't think there were any sad things in that article at all. I was expecting an overbearing soapbox waxing over how horrible paying for stadiums is for cities, and how bad of an idea this all is. Instead, it was a very balanced approach to the issue at hand, with good observations and input from people like Peacock.

^ Agree! The article was objective and made several good observations. Hopefully we will be overwhelmed.

To get ahead, risks have to be taken. We sit here mulling over what STL could have been, so often. I just wish we could get something big done once and a while. Politicians are the reason we'll likely lose the Rams, not the stadium, how it was financed or team itself. That lease WAS without a doubt, the worst ever drafted and signed off on. And of course, St. Louis was fleeced. Hopefully, we learn from that mess and do it right this time.

^ I am not arguing the point that we may never get another Final 4. However, cities like Nashville, Charlotte, Indy and others, are our peer cities these days. We will fall behind them, if we do not keep up. I know Chicago and the big boys will always be ahead, but we should be competing with peer cities for those mid-level conventions and getting a big convention once and a while.

I just don't see how having an NFL team is going to be the difference in staying ahead or behind those cities.

It's like saying SEC schools are better than Ivy League schools because their football programs are better. Sure the average American sports fan thinks of those schools more, but when it comes to the real stuff, the Ivy Leaugue schools are light years ahead.

Point being, let's focus on the real priorities. IF we can keep the Rams in a reasonable manner, great, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Our current plan is a bit beyond reasonable (but as I've said repeatedly, I won't freak out if it goes forward). But even then, it appears unlikely to work. And if that's the case, then good riddance to the bad rubbish that is the NFL.

I was taken aback by that of all the things to be sad about in St. Louis the one that might convince him to move is if a large portion of the community doesn't like his idea.

quincunx wrote:I was taken aback by that of all the things to be sad about in St. Louis the one that might convince him to move is if a large portion of the community doesn't like his idea.

I don't think he was talking specifically about "his idea," I think he was speaking generally about the overwhelming negative attitude in St. Louis regularly manifested via STLtoday online comments and letters to the editor.

I can absolutely understand wanting to leave St. Louis for a place where that is less often the case. I feel that way frequently. If the town balks at this idea, I'll more-than-likely feel it again.

Greatest St. Louis wrote:Honestly, I agree completely with Mr. Peacock, and I didn't think there were any sad things in that article at all. I was expecting an overbearing soapbox waxing over how horrible paying for stadiums is for cities, and how bad of an idea this all is. Instead, it was a very balanced approach to the issue at hand, with good observations and input from people like Peacock.

Why would you expect "an overbearing soapbox waxing over how horrible paying for stadiums is for cities, and how bad of an idea this all is" from the guy that proposed the stadium?

And really? You don't think it's sad that he likens valid criticism of his thrown-together plan to negativity for the sake of negativity? Positive people couldn't possibly have anything critical to say about his plan, because logic? If I don't get my way I'm outta here? Sounds to me like a pretty standard tantrum from somebody who's used to getting his way. Sad, indeed.