It's still funny reading the Bring Back the Rams Facebook page. They only link to articles that are positive about a Rams move back to LA and completely ignore neutral or staying in St. Louis news. I'd like to think if I was on their side I'd still present all views.
^I will say, the Keep the Rams in STL page posts anything and everything no matter what the take is. If nothing else, it's a nice resource for updated information from a broad number of sources. I just don't understand journalistically how articles that are 180 degrees apart in the delivery of news from "trusted sources" can be released almost simultaneously.
Interesting articles from the Bay Area talking about their growing pains with Levi's Stadium.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... s-stadium/
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... -dead-red/
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... awakami%29
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... s-stadium/
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... -dead-red/
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... awakami%29
It’s Dead Red Stadium.
There’s no life, no ambience, no outside meaning to it, and lots of empty red seats.
Maybe that’s because the PSLs and overall enormous ticket prices have driven out the most passionate fans and turned the stadium to corporate expense accounts and a lounge-lizard mentality.
Maybe the Santa Clara site just attracts a different type of fan–and that fan is new to the NFL scene or is different than anything Candlestick brought, or that CenturyLink brings.
But through six regular-season 49ers home games, it is notably bland in there.
- 284
Is there any sort of retail around Levi's stadium? I think if we do build a new stadium which will have to happen one way or another it should be like Minneapolis's or Indy's . I think I'm more confident the Rams aren't the team that's moving and i'm sold on Raiders and Chargers although thats just my belief and opinion ..
I was also reading on a comparison of the L.A. vs STL ran support when the team had multiple losing seasons that STL has flat out supported the Rams and its miserable years than L.A. has ever had not saying L.A. isn't deserving of a team but i don't think Rams are the ideal team they would want back. I'm sure theres a bring back the Raiders and Chargers page as well.
I was also reading on a comparison of the L.A. vs STL ran support when the team had multiple losing seasons that STL has flat out supported the Rams and its miserable years than L.A. has ever had not saying L.A. isn't deserving of a team but i don't think Rams are the ideal team they would want back. I'm sure theres a bring back the Raiders and Chargers page as well.
Bringing Home The Dome
37 minute long 'booster' video (from mid 90s) about the Dome posted by Explore St. Louis.
Interesting, the timing of the posting by the Convention & Visitors Commission.
37 minute long 'booster' video (from mid 90s) about the Dome posted by Explore St. Louis.
Interesting, the timing of the posting by the Convention & Visitors Commission.
- 3,757
Dweebe wrote:
In other words, 95% of their members are a joke!
The BBTLAR site is great for getting info that is positive for LA and negative for STL. I've seen them post a few STL - centric article, but they rip it to death. The people who comment on articles on this site are 100% biased, blinded and unfair in their analysis of the situation. They will just dismiss you and rip you, even if you make valid, unbiased points.It's still funny reading the Bring Back the Rams Facebook page. They only link to articles that are positive about a Rams move back to LA and completely ignore neutral or staying in St. Louis news. I'd like to think if I was on their side I'd still present all views.
In other words, 95% of their members are a joke!
If I had to pick one word to describe them, it would be "zealots"DogtownBnR wrote:Dweebe wrote:
The BBTLAR site is great for getting info that is positive for LA and negative for STL. I've seen them post a few STL - centric article, but they rip it to death. The people who comment on articles on this site are 100% biased, blinded and unfair in their analysis of the situation. They will just dismiss you and rip you, even if you make valid, unbiased points.It's still funny reading the Bring Back the Rams Facebook page. They only link to articles that are positive about a Rams move back to LA and completely ignore neutral or staying in St. Louis news. I'd like to think if I was on their side I'd still present all views.
In other words, 95% of their members are a joke!
I can see this happening here. Even more so if we're to build an open air stadium. And especially if the on field performance continues to suffer.dweebe wrote:It’s Dead Red Stadium.
There’s no life, no ambience, no outside meaning to it, and lots of empty red seats.
Maybe that’s because the PSLs and overall enormous ticket prices have driven out the most passionate fans and turned the stadium to corporate expense accounts and a lounge-lizard mentality.
- 271
I can see this happening here, because it did happen here.stlien wrote:I can see this happening here. Even more so if we're to build an open air stadium. And especially if the on field performance continues to suffer.dweebe wrote:It’s Dead Red Stadium.
There’s no life, no ambience, no outside meaning to it, and lots of empty red seats.
Maybe that’s because the PSLs and overall enormous ticket prices have driven out the most passionate fans and turned the stadium to corporate expense accounts and a lounge-lizard mentality.
It's already happened here.stlien wrote:I can see this happening here. Even more so if we're to build an open air stadium. And especially if the on field performance continues to suffer.dweebe wrote:It’s Dead Red Stadium.
There’s no life, no ambience, no outside meaning to it, and lots of empty red seats.
Maybe that’s because the PSLs and overall enormous ticket prices have driven out the most passionate fans and turned the stadium to corporate expense accounts and a lounge-lizard mentality.
But people have argued an open air stadium here would get some of the lazy fat cats out of the lower bowl and into luxury boxes. I've sat in lower bowl sideline seats at Tennessee, Tampa and Cincinnati (all open air) and the crowds are completely different than the Ed Jones Dome. Plus I've sat all over the lower bowl here and the crowds in the endzones are totally different than the lame gray hairs along the sidelines.
Chargers aren't going anywhere in 2015.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html
This part was interesting.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html
This part was interesting.
Any new stadium proposal would be put in front of San Diego voters and would, under the California constitution, require two-thirds approval. That's an extraordinarily difficult standard with an issue as controversial as a stadium.
- 8,155
^^^ The purpose of an outdoor football stadium is to show whether your city has true fans.
- 3,757
Not sure how to take this news. It might just mean we have a lame-duck franchise for one more season. One more season of empty seats and embarrassment nationally, further tarnishing our reputation as an NFL market. I can't see the Rams filling the stadium in any capacity, next season, assuming the stadium/relocation issue looms. I think Kroenke wants to go and assuming Peacock and STL cannot jump the MONUMENTAL hurdle of financing a venue, he will go without any issue. I am not optimistic, for several reasons. The most notable is the fact that Peacock can come up with a great venue plan, but in the end it has to be paid for and the public here has no desire to pay for a billionaires stadium. Will Stan agree to foot ANY money, if he really wants to move the team? Not likely, unless throwing money down is part of a 'good faith effort'.
Also, in reading between the lines, Stan and Dean Spanos were yucking it up on the sidelines at the Rams-Chargers game. Could Stan and Dean be planning an LA partnership, where Dean rents from Stan as the NFL's second tenant in Inglewood?? They didn't seem like opposing parties back on Nov 23rd, at the game. Could Stan have told him to hold off in 2015, until the Rams deal falls through and he can move without obstacle. Then Deano can jump ship with Stan. Not that far-fetched considering STL and SD getting a stadium deal done, is far-fetched, at least at this stage in the game. Also, why would Stan want to do business with that weirdo Mark Davis??! He'd much rather be in bed with Spanos, I'd guess, just based upon the perceived difficulty in dealing with an oddball like Davis.
Also, in reading between the lines, Stan and Dean Spanos were yucking it up on the sidelines at the Rams-Chargers game. Could Stan and Dean be planning an LA partnership, where Dean rents from Stan as the NFL's second tenant in Inglewood?? They didn't seem like opposing parties back on Nov 23rd, at the game. Could Stan have told him to hold off in 2015, until the Rams deal falls through and he can move without obstacle. Then Deano can jump ship with Stan. Not that far-fetched considering STL and SD getting a stadium deal done, is far-fetched, at least at this stage in the game. Also, why would Stan want to do business with that weirdo Mark Davis??! He'd much rather be in bed with Spanos, I'd guess, just based upon the perceived difficulty in dealing with an oddball like Davis.
- 9,539
^ Bernie has said that Peacock plan doesn't involve a major public funding option.
- 8,155
^ it is nice to be finally getting some kind of clarity on the Saint Louis plan and we'll know a lot more soon.
Unless the NFL is crooked (and it is, so yeah...), Kroenke would have to pick up a decent part of the tab for a new stadium in St. Louis and it WOULD be part of his good faith effort. No cities pay for the entire stadium these days. It's always a public/private partnership.
In fact, the NFL encourages this with their G4 loan program. If I understand right, teams are only eligible to utilize that program if both they and the public are already committing a certain level of money.
So Kroenke won't be able to just say he's not paying and be granted a clear path to LA.
The question is whether St. Louis can come up with the money it needs to complete the plan. I'm still not sure it's worth doing, but I suspect we can find the money without much trouble.
In fact, the NFL encourages this with their G4 loan program. If I understand right, teams are only eligible to utilize that program if both they and the public are already committing a certain level of money.
So Kroenke won't be able to just say he's not paying and be granted a clear path to LA.
The question is whether St. Louis can come up with the money it needs to complete the plan. I'm still not sure it's worth doing, but I suspect we can find the money without much trouble.
- 3,757
Dbinsouthcity, that's the problem. Will Stan put a bunch of money out of his own pocket? Will the NFL view STL offering a 1/3-1/3-1/3 split (NFL G4 + Stan + public money) a true good faith offer to resolve the stadium issue? We just don't know. Is there anything in the NFL bylaws that explain how much money an owner has to chip in and at what point the offer is not acceptable, once the owner has to foot so much of the bill? I don't think they do, but I have not read all of them. I just wonder if you are talking $300-500 million of public money between our 1/3, land and infrastructure improvements. The public will not want to go that route. I am not sure where Bernie heard the public would not have to chip in. Any deal would be a 1/3 split assuming the stadium qualifies for the G4 loan. There WILL be public money involved. Many around here, after being burned with the ED, will not support ANY public money. Bonds coming up with money for this deal will be tough. IF they can re-funnel money without a vote, they might be able to push a deal through. Who knows, maybe Dave Peacock can pull off a deal with private investors, but I've heard nothing like this. Only that a public/private/NFL partnership is the way to go.
- 9,539
Rams to LA never made sense to me numbers wise....Stan would have to sink $2B-2.5B of his OWN net worth (nearly 50%) for a business that makes a profit of about $50 million a year.....it would take 40 years+ to pay back the loans for that 2.5B before he starts seeing a profit in LA.
Why i use $50M profit- that's the MOST Green Bay Packers were turned over in their history in one season...the the Packers are a iconic brand with nationwide following and 80 year season ticket waiting list.
(Packers finances are public because the way their ownership is structured)
Why i use $50M profit- that's the MOST Green Bay Packers were turned over in their history in one season...the the Packers are a iconic brand with nationwide following and 80 year season ticket waiting list.
(Packers finances are public because the way their ownership is structured)
there will be some public money but it wont be a MAJOR factor...there are ways to extend the current hotel/car rental tax.....they can make Stan look very good by having him pay off the last $100M in bonds for the Dome in exchange for extending the current hotel/car rental tax....DogtownBnR wrote:Dbinsouthcity, that's the problem. Will Stan put a bunch of money out of his own pocket? Will the NFL view STL offering a 1/3-1/3-1/3 split (NFL G4 + Stan + public money) a true good faith offer to resolve the stadium issue? We just don't know. Is there anything in the NFL bylaws that explain how much money an owner has to chip in and at what point the offer is not acceptable, once the owner has to foot so much of the bill? I don't think they do, but I have not read all of them. I just wonder if you are talking $300-500 million of public money between our 1/3, land and infrastructure improvements. The public will not want to go that route. I am not sure where Bernie heard the public would not have to chip in. Any deal would be a 1/3 split assuming the stadium qualifies for the G4 loan. There WILL be public money involved. Many around here, after being burned with the ED, will not support ANY public money. Bonds coming up with money for this deal will be tough. IF they can re-funnel money without a vote, they might be able to push a deal through. Who knows, maybe Dave Peacock can pull off a deal with private investors, but I've heard nothing like this. Only that a public/private/NFL partnership is the way to go.
- 3,757
I'd be shocked if the public didn't at the very least have to come up with $300 million in some form. I agree that we should NEVER completely finance a venue. That allows teams to bail on the city. It is MUCH better when the owner has a financially vested interest in the stadium, so he cannot bolt without abandoning the investment made in the venue. If the Rams would have owned 1/3 or 50% of the Dome, we wouldn't be in this mess. I know the Dome is a different situation, being attached to the convention center, but if the stadium is free-standing, I want the owner to own most if not all it, just like the Cardinals own Busch.
Looks like things are not going well down in Atlanta as the Falcon's new stadium gets more expensive and the owner has to take on more debt.jstriebel wrote:Unless the NFL is crooked (and it is, so yeah...), Kroenke would have to pick up a decent part of the tab for a new stadium in St. Louis and it WOULD be part of his good faith effort. No cities pay for the entire stadium these days. It's always a public/private partnership.
In fact, the NFL encourages this with their G4 loan program. If I understand right, teams are only eligible to utilize that program if both they and the public are already committing a certain level of money.
So Kroenke won't be able to just say he's not paying and be granted a clear path to LA.
The question is whether St. Louis can come up with the money it needs to complete the plan. I'm still not sure it's worth doing, but I suspect we can find the money without much trouble.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... r-falcons/
^ That's interesting. I'd find it reassuring if Kroenke wasn't worth 3x more than Blank. But it's still interesting.
Would Kroenke really want to carry the entire funding burden as he would in LA?
Would Kroenke really want to carry the entire funding burden as he would in LA?
- 9,539
Rams posted this today...looks like the domino's are falling in place for the 2015 St.Louis Rams.
![]()
I don't think Kronke has the ego problem that Blank does. The additional $200 million for the new Falcons stadium makes it seem more and more like he's trying to build AT&T Stadium 2.0.jstriebel wrote:^ That's interesting. I'd find it reassuring if Kroenke wasn't worth 3x more than Blank. But it's still interesting.
Would Kroenke really want to carry the entire funding burden as he would in LA?