City vs Rams Lawsuit

DogtownBnR · PostFeb 04, 2015#9012015-02-04T13:54+00:00

^ I'd have to agree with you Roger....150%!

PS- Where is the great and easily accessible Kevin Demoff been....... He has been AWOL since Stan's stadium deal in LA was announced. Where is all of the 'we want a stadium solution in St. Louis BS? Where is all of the rhetoric he has been spewing for the last several years. I can't imagine he was completely in the dark on this stuff. Then again, he is from LA. Why would he care if he was forced to lie. There are a lot of dishonest people involved in this. (ie... Stan 2010)

PostFeb 04, 2015#9022015-02-04T14:28+00:00

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian ... e-the-nfl/

These guys from Forbes seem to be convinced the Rams & Chargers are moving into Kroenke's palace. They also seem to be convinced that STL and SD will be offered $2 Billion expansion franchises. I just find this scenario hard to believe, at this stage. Will the NFL see STL as a viable market if attendance tanks during this process? Will our national bad PR hurt us? Will this be 2 years, 5 years, 10 years..? Where will all of these chips fall? Can STL gather a group of investors or an individual owner (lead person for the group) to buy an expansion franchise. Maybe that is what Dave Peacock is really working towards, per the NFL's direction. Maybe this is why it was rumored that Dave was trying to get investors together to buy the Rams. Maybe he knows the NFL will expand after the Rams move. All speculation... I know... just interesting, not necessarily fun, but interesting.

moorlander · PostFeb 04, 2015#9032015-02-04T14:48+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:Will the NFL see STL as a viable market if attendance tanks during this process?

Of course the will. Why anyone, in any city, spend money on a team that put us through the ringer like this is beyond me. They may try to spin it that way to fill seats but most reasonable people won't support a team that's abandoning them.

dweebe · PostFeb 04, 2015#9042015-02-04T14:51+00:00

jstriebel wrote:They'll play in the Rose Bowl, and if the end goal is playing in his new LA palace, I don't think he'll mind being in the Rose Bowl an extra year or two.

That said, I don't see much chance they're anywhere but St. Louis in 2015. It's possible, but unlikely. More likely they'll make the move in 2016.

Our stadium proposal has a chance, but I'm skeptical. Kroenke definitely wants out, and I just don't know if we can overcome that. (And given the specifics of the stadium plan, I really don't know if I want to.)

Not 100% sure. A page or two back someone had a picture from the LA Dodger's president's office where he had a folder open on his desk and a football field diagram laid out at Dodger Stadium.

PostFeb 04, 2015#9052015-02-04T14:53+00:00

moorlander wrote:
DogtownBnR wrote:Will the NFL see STL as a viable market if attendance tanks during this process?
Of course the will. Why anyone, in any city, spend money on a team that put us through the ringer like this is beyond me. They may try to spin it that way to fill seats but most reasonable people won't support a team that's abandoning them.

Houston had a horrible lame duck season before the Oilers left and they still got the Texans as an expansion franchise just a few years later.

DogtownBnR · PostFeb 04, 2015#9062015-02-04T15:11+00:00

I understand that bad attendance, especially in a lame-duck season , should not be held against a fanbase. That is not the question. The question is, would this be used against us, in combination the fact that attendance here has been at the bottom of the league for a few years now, even with rock-bottom ticket prices, as low as $8 a ticket for some games. I am well aware of how bogus that is and the fact that we've been put through the ringer with a decade or more of bad football and pretty much bad football since the NFL came here. That is obvious to any objective person. I just think we've been screwed before by the NFL and they would not hesitate to screw us again. Will it be another expansion war like last time, if we are vying for a team against, say a San Antonio, Las Vegas and San Diego. Are we left out in the cold like we were several decades ago, when Charlotte and JAX got a team over us..... I think the NFL could use bogus stuff like that down the road. Not to mention, so many hold losing a team against a city. In both cases with STL, we lost our team to owners that want bigger, better stadiums, not a reflection on the fanbase. (I'm speaking there with the assumption the Rams are gone).Yet, so many national 'experts' bring that up when talking about a team going to a city. "Well, that city already lost a team (or 2). It is a fact that in the majority of big US cities, the NFL will work, if the team is average or better.

PostFeb 04, 2015#9072015-02-04T15:14+00:00

^^Houston is also one of the fastest growing cities in the US and one of the largest metro areas in one of the fastest growing states. Texas is also one of the best football states. Houston really is a city that the NFL must be in. Do they feel that way about St. Louis? Time will tell.

WendellOPruitt · PostFeb 04, 2015#9082015-02-04T15:48+00:00

IF the Rams leave STL can get another team... These are the teams that will need new stadiums in 2020

Titans
Buccaneers
Panthers (Their lease is actually up in 2020, I've heard rumors they have interest in STL because the owner has some kind of connection here.)
Jaguars
Ravens
Bills
Saints
Redskins (They want back in D.C. but politicians will not allow them back unless they change the name.)
Bengals
And of course those that need a stadium now..........
Raiders
Chargers

jstriebel · PostFeb 04, 2015#9092015-02-04T16:26+00:00

I don't know that I buy the NFL expanding into St. Louis and San Diego after those teams move to LA. Especially not for $2 billion in expansion fees.

You can get that kind of fee for an LA expansion team, but a St. Louis or San Diego expansion team isn't worth that kind of dollar. And since that's the case, it might not be worth it for the NFL owners to split their revenue another 2 ways.

If the NFL wants to expand, the smart business decision would be expanding into LA, not letting current teams move there and then expanding into the old markets.

chaifetz10 · PostFeb 04, 2015#9102015-02-04T16:29+00:00

They wont all need new stadiums though.

Titans - LP Field is in pretty good shape. Some updates and a routine maintenance and they're in good shape.
Buccaneers - Raymond James opened in 1998. It's in pretty good condition. As with many stadiums I'm going to list out, a few upgrades/renovations and it's in good shape.
Panthers - I could see them potentially relocating... they would be St. Louis' best bet for an NFL team if the Rams leave.
Jaguars - They upgraded in 2013.
Ravens - I don't get why this would need any replacement. Yes it's a bit "older" but its still in great shape. A few renovations here and there in a few years and it's still a great venue.
Bills - There are already plans for a new stadium to replace Ralph Wilson. The Bills new owner is not moving the team.
Saints - Superdome just received a renovation after Katrina. The Saints are not leaving NO.
Redskins - The name change isn't going to hold up a new stadium. Realistically, the owner would change the name than move the team.
Bengals - Paul Brown Stadium opened in 2000. Cinci has The Banks between this and GABP and they're more likely to simply upgrade/renovate than tear it down and rebuild. They're not going anywhere.

gary kreie · PostFeb 04, 2015#9112015-02-04T16:44+00:00

It was very expensive to get a new NFL team last time. We had to pay for 100% of our new stadium, and also pay the NFL a small fortune from PSL money and give the Rama a sweetheart deal. This time we will be competing against London, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Mexico City, etc. it would be a lot smarter to keep the Rams and get them and the NFL to pay most of the cost of our new stadium.

dweebe · PostFeb 04, 2015#9122015-02-04T17:51+00:00

chaifetz10 wrote:They wont all need new stadiums though.

Titans - LP Field is in pretty good shape. Some updates and a routine maintenance and they're in good shape.
Buccaneers - Raymond James opened in 1998. It's in pretty good condition. As with many stadiums I'm going to list out, a few upgrades/renovations and it's in good shape.
Panthers - I could see them potentially relocating... they would be St. Louis' best bet for an NFL team if the Rams leave.
Jaguars - They upgraded in 2013.
Ravens - I don't get why this would need any replacement. Yes it's a bit "older" but its still in great shape. A few renovations here and there in a few years and it's still a great venue.
Bills - There are already plans for a new stadium to replace Ralph Wilson. The Bills new owner is not moving the team.
Saints - Superdome just received a renovation after Katrina. The Saints are not leaving NO.
Redskins - The name change isn't going to hold up a new stadium. Realistically, the owner would change the name than move the team.
Bengals - Paul Brown Stadium opened in 2000. Cinci has The Banks between this and GABP and they're more likely to simply upgrade/renovate than tear it down and rebuild. They're not going anywhere.

Agreed on all these.

And I'd rather be without football over having Daniel Snyder as the owner of a relocated Redskins team.

DogtownBnR · PostFeb 04, 2015#9132015-02-04T17:55+00:00

First and foremost, I'd like to keep the Rams, as Gary said. After that, I'd prefer the Panthers or Jags, since I'm still bitter about the fact that TagliaBOO screwed St. Louis back in the day. If he had not passed on STL, we would not have this issue right now, nor would we have given the Rams the farm for a 21 year lease deal.

jstriebel · PostFeb 04, 2015#9142015-02-04T17:57+00:00

Yep. The chances of St. Louis getting a new team are pretty slim if the Rams leave. Not because of the often stated "they lost two teams, why would we go back" line of thinking. Not that AT ALL.

But because there just aren't that many candidates to move, and because a new stadium would be a lot more expensive at that point. Oakland, San Diego, and potentially Jacksonville (but more down the line than right now), would be the only realistic options. But none could be considered likely.

dweebe · PostFeb 04, 2015#9152015-02-04T19:01+00:00

jstriebel wrote:Yep. The chances of St. Louis getting a new team are pretty slim if the Rams leave. Not because of the often stated "they lost two teams, why would we go back" line of thinking. Not that AT ALL.

But because there just aren't that many candidates to move, and because a new stadium would be a lot more expensive at that point. Oakland, San Diego, and potentially Jacksonville (but more down the line than right now), would be the only realistic options. But none could be considered likely.

So let's say later this week Stan announces "I'm outta here!" but the NFL tells Peacock to keep working. Is that pause a chance to rethink the North Riverfront location?

WendellOPruitt · PostFeb 04, 2015#9162015-02-04T20:54+00:00

chaifetz10 wrote:They wont all need new stadiums though.

Titans - LP Field is in pretty good shape. Some updates and a routine maintenance and they're in good shape.
Buccaneers - Raymond James opened in 1998. It's in pretty good condition. As with many stadiums I'm going to list out, a few upgrades/renovations and it's in good shape.
Panthers - I could see them potentially relocating... they would be St. Louis' best bet for an NFL team if the Rams leave.
Jaguars - They upgraded in 2013.
Ravens - I don't get why this would need any replacement. Yes it's a bit "older" but its still in great shape. A few renovations here and there in a few years and it's still a great venue.
Bills - There are already plans for a new stadium to replace Ralph Wilson. The Bills new owner is not moving the team.
Saints - Superdome just received a renovation after Katrina. The Saints are not leaving NO.
Redskins - The name change isn't going to hold up a new stadium. Realistically, the owner would change the name than move the team.
Bengals - Paul Brown Stadium opened in 2000. Cinci has The Banks between this and GABP and they're more likely to simply upgrade/renovate than tear it down and rebuild. They're not going anywhere.

Five years from now, yes they will need new stadiums the dome was 16 years old when it was consider not top tier in arbitration; the Georgia Dome (only 20 years old also) also is not consider top tier, the age and condition don't mean a thing.

The Georgia Dome and Edward Jones Dome are in better condition than both Oakland Coliseum and Qualcomm. Oakland Coliseum has raw sewage leaking in the locker room.

If the Browns can leave Cleveland ANY team can move.

jstriebel · PostFeb 04, 2015#9172015-02-04T21:34+00:00

There's a difference between the Rams situation and the other situations. The Rams stadium HAD to be "top tier" the lease. Other situations don't necessarily give that leverage. In fact, they just flat don't. So it's all about the status of the lease in general.

Moreover, the only model we've seen replaced this quickly have been the convention center domes. Indy, Atlanta, and St. Louis all built ho-hum domes attached to their convention centers, and all have been or will be replaced. Indy was able to swindle Indiana. Atlanta is being primarily privately financed.

The point being, that the stadium's above aren't likely to require replacement. As leases come up, owners will negotiate based on their leverage to get upgrades, but I wouldn't expect them to get replaced. And I certainly wouldn't count on relocation.

As I said, SD, Oakland, and maybe even Jacksonville (though that's not a stadium issue) are the only teams actually in play, IMO.

roger wyoming II · PostFeb 04, 2015#9182015-02-04T21:42+00:00

^ Plus we won't be able to offer a free stadium; an owner would have to bring $500 million or more to the table... as the public share of funding that Peacock sketched out is relatively modest as these things go, it wouldn't be a big enticement for another team to move here.

WendellOPruitt · PostFeb 04, 2015#9192015-02-04T21:48+00:00

jstriebel wrote:There's a difference between the Rams situation and the other situations. The Rams stadium HAD to be "top tier" the lease. Other situations don't necessarily give that leverage. In fact, they just flat don't. So it's all about the status of the lease in general.

Moreover, the only model we've seen replaced this quickly have been the convention center domes. Indy, Atlanta, and St. Louis all built ho-hum domes attached to their convention centers, and all have been or will be replaced. Indy was able to swindle Indiana. Atlanta is being primarily privately financed.

The point being, that the stadium's above aren't likely to require replacement. As leases come up, owners will negotiate based on their leverage to get upgrades, but I wouldn't expect them to get replaced. And I certainly wouldn't count on relocation.

As I said, SD, Oakland, and maybe even Jacksonville (though that's not a stadium issue) are the only teams actually in play, IMO.

If that were true why do the Browns, Dolphins, and Panthers need $300 million in upgrades to the stadiums. Of course no top tier clause but that doesn't mean that domes are any different.

Dolphins "Miami Dolphins Stadium Begins Massvise Renovation and Modernization" http://dailysnark.com/miami-dolphins-st ... rnization/

The Dolphins stadium is open air.........

dweebe · PostFeb 04, 2015#9202015-02-04T22:13+00:00

WendellOPruitt wrote:
jstriebel wrote:There's a difference between the Rams situation and the other situations. The Rams stadium HAD to be "top tier" the lease. Other situations don't necessarily give that leverage. In fact, they just flat don't. So it's all about the status of the lease in general.

Moreover, the only model we've seen replaced this quickly have been the convention center domes. Indy, Atlanta, and St. Louis all built ho-hum domes attached to their convention centers, and all have been or will be replaced. Indy was able to swindle Indiana. Atlanta is being primarily privately financed.

The point being, that the stadium's above aren't likely to require replacement. As leases come up, owners will negotiate based on their leverage to get upgrades, but I wouldn't expect them to get replaced. And I certainly wouldn't count on relocation.

As I said, SD, Oakland, and maybe even Jacksonville (though that's not a stadium issue) are the only teams actually in play, IMO.
If that were true why do the Browns, Dolphins, and Panthers need $300 million in upgrades to the stadiums. Of course no top tier clause but that doesn't mean that domes are any different.

Dolphins "Miami Dolphins Stadium Begins Massvise Renovation and Modernization" http://dailysnark.com/miami-dolphins-st ... rnization/

The Dolphins stadium is open air.........

Going to look pretty decent when done.

I wouldn't mind that same concept here for football, or in a smaller scale for soccer.

roger wyoming II · PostFeb 04, 2015#9212015-02-04T22:52+00:00

It looks like the House will have a look at the financial impacts of the Rams...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 33ff7.html

If done right it should be helpful.

dweebe · PostFeb 05, 2015#9222015-02-05T00:21+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:It looks like the House will have a look at the financial impacts of the Rams...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 33ff7.html

If done right it should be helpful.

You're cute. Anyone with an "R" behind their name is just going to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala I don't hear you" and then go back to sending texts about how much they hate Jay Nixon.

beer city · PostFeb 05, 2015#9232015-02-05T02:00+00:00

New AC Milan stadium - Can you imagine something on the river?

http://www.dezeen.com/2015/02/04/arup-n ... l-stadium/

chaifetz10 · PostFeb 05, 2015#9242015-02-05T02:11+00:00

Miami is renovating the stadium since its now a football only stadium now. They no longer have to worry about being baseball friendly and can make permanent football field upgrades.

WendellOPruitt · PostFeb 05, 2015#9252015-02-05T04:43+00:00

chaifetz10 wrote:Miami is renovating the stadium since its now a football only stadium now. They no longer have to worry about being baseball friendly and can make permanent football field upgrades.

The Browns are renovating their stadium completed in 1999 that is a football only open air stadium.
http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index ... e_120.html

Also the Panthers have an open-air football only stadium complete in 1995 they just renovated.
http://www.panthers.com/news/article-2/ ... 0cfb049bcd

Open-air or Doomed it does not matter, these stadiums need constant up keep to be top-tier no matter their age or condition don't matter either. Millions of dollars in investments are needed for all of those teams I mentioned earlier or they fall behind.

This is why Peacock wants a stadium like Soldier Field you could renovate into basically a new stadium in 20-40 years.

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode