^ I see your point. I just think it would be too much of a coincidence, that he'd look to put an MLS team in LA without an NFL team, after buying 60 acres there. Also, I think Stan and Garber of MLS, probably know each other well enough. I'm sure Garber loves having billionaire owners, so he will likely appease Stan. If he built a state of the art duel-use venue in a market like LA, I'm sure Garber will make an exception and let Stan put a team there. I am not disagreeing with you, that it could be possible, that he is looking only to own an MLS team in LA. Anything is possible. Just seems unlikely. What is clear is that Stan's sports portfolio is getting bigger, as his head is too. That does not bode well for the Rams in STL. I could see his ego wanting a team in the 2nd biggest US market, but also the chance to host a Super Bowl or two, before he is cryogenically frozen, toupee and all.
If Kroenke gets his dream deal subsidy-wise from MO and StL City- County, how much money are we talking in public funding per year? What is the most highest possible outcome? Then what is a more likely, smaller outcome?
I'm thinking about what I could live with if the team bolted. A $20m per year, 30% tax credit for B Round funding for bio, financial and tech start-ups sounds pretty sexy. . . and would lure a massive amount of talent to the area.
If you capped each deal at $300,000 per start-up (invest $1m and get a $300k tax credit), that would be 66 new start-ups in StL per year. You could hold the funding announcements in the Edward Jones Dome in a South-by-Southwest type atmosphere. Dole out smaller tax credit awards and you could easily have over 100 start-ups in St. Louis per year.
Build or rehab housing for these folks and rent to them at break even rates in the Northside. The area could truly become the startup hub for the entire region, leading to actual community regeneration.
I'm thinking about what I could live with if the team bolted. A $20m per year, 30% tax credit for B Round funding for bio, financial and tech start-ups sounds pretty sexy. . . and would lure a massive amount of talent to the area.
If you capped each deal at $300,000 per start-up (invest $1m and get a $300k tax credit), that would be 66 new start-ups in StL per year. You could hold the funding announcements in the Edward Jones Dome in a South-by-Southwest type atmosphere. Dole out smaller tax credit awards and you could easily have over 100 start-ups in St. Louis per year.
Build or rehab housing for these folks and rent to them at break even rates in the Northside. The area could truly become the startup hub for the entire region, leading to actual community regeneration.
realclear wrote:If Kroenke gets his dream deal subsidy-wise from MO and StL City- County, how much money are we talking in public funding per year? What is the most highest possible outcome? Then what is a more likely, smaller outcome?
I'm thinking about what I could live with if the team bolted. A $20m per year, 30% tax credit for B Round funding for bio, financial and tech start-ups sounds pretty sexy. . . and would lure a massive amount of talent to the area.
If you capped each deal at $300,000 per start-up (invest $1m and get a $300k tax credit), that would be 66 new start-ups in StL per year. You could hold the funding announcements in the Edward Jones Dome in a South-by-Southwest type atmosphere. Dole out smaller tax credit awards and you could easily have over 100 start-ups in St. Louis per year.
Build or rehab housing for these folks and rent to them at break even rates in the Northside. The area could truly become the startup hub for the entire region, leading to actual community regeneration.
State is paying $12m a year, city $6m and county $6m until 2021, weather the Rams stay or go
Those three entities would have to put up probably around $200-300m for the next stadium with the NFL putting up another $200m
And then the rest is on Stan, probably $400m.
This actually comes in response to the path the soccer thread had taken, but it applies more to the Rams.
Here's an interesting note regarding Stan's loyalty to St. Louis.
• The Rams do more community service now than the Blues or the Cardinals (who do a very nice amount). It's at or near the top of community service in the NFL.
• The Rams have one of if not the most expansive pre-season (what local broadcasts are limited to) networks of any in the NFL, televising games in 8 states, I believe.
• The Rams have won 7 games each of the past two years and appear to be on the verge of getting over the competitive hump (although their absurdly good division is an obstacle to that).
All of these are developments born from moves Kroenke has made since taking over the franchise a few years ago. He's done more to make the Rams a part of the community, to expand their reach beyond the immediate metro, and to field a good football team than any point during the 15 or 16 years before he exercised his option (save the all too short GSOT glory days).
Remember Stan's also a major reason the Rams came to St. Louis in the first place.
My point isn't that Stan is fiercely loyal to St. Louis. Just that he does seem to appreciate this region, and the part of him we're seeing (or more accurately not seeing) may just be the absurdly successful businessman side.
On that note, here's a chat response from Rams P-D beat writer Jim Thomas earlier today. To give some context, Thomas has never taken a particularly optimistic tone about the Rams future in St. Louis. Earlier in this chat, in fact, he downgrades his guess at the chances of the Rams staying from 60/40 to 55/45.
Here's an interesting note regarding Stan's loyalty to St. Louis.
• The Rams do more community service now than the Blues or the Cardinals (who do a very nice amount). It's at or near the top of community service in the NFL.
• The Rams have one of if not the most expansive pre-season (what local broadcasts are limited to) networks of any in the NFL, televising games in 8 states, I believe.
• The Rams have won 7 games each of the past two years and appear to be on the verge of getting over the competitive hump (although their absurdly good division is an obstacle to that).
All of these are developments born from moves Kroenke has made since taking over the franchise a few years ago. He's done more to make the Rams a part of the community, to expand their reach beyond the immediate metro, and to field a good football team than any point during the 15 or 16 years before he exercised his option (save the all too short GSOT glory days).
Remember Stan's also a major reason the Rams came to St. Louis in the first place.
My point isn't that Stan is fiercely loyal to St. Louis. Just that he does seem to appreciate this region, and the part of him we're seeing (or more accurately not seeing) may just be the absurdly successful businessman side.
On that note, here's a chat response from Rams P-D beat writer Jim Thomas earlier today. To give some context, Thomas has never taken a particularly optimistic tone about the Rams future in St. Louis. Earlier in this chat, in fact, he downgrades his guess at the chances of the Rams staying from 60/40 to 55/45.
http://live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_cha ... /104693698
You're right. It's a tough puzzle to solve. But there can be a way out. Let's say Kroenke moves to LA. New stadium cost: in excess of $1 billion. Relocation fee: At least $800 million. Then through in associated costs of playing in another stadium while his is being built, plus having practicing facilities, team offices and any related costs with environmental impact issues, etc. You're talking more than $2 billion. Now consider a possible St. Louis solution: NFL stadium fund kicks in $200 million; city and state come up with $400 million (the CVC already was at $180 million, so you need "just" another $220 million), Stan kicks in $400 million and you have a $1 billion stadium. So the question for Stan is: Would you rather kick in $400 million to stay in St. Louis and get a new stadium and be a local hero, or pay more than $2 billion to get a new stadium in LA? Doesn't seem like that tough of a decision to me. Ways for St. Louis and the state to come up with $220 million _ 1.) Raise the cigarette tax, it's already one of the lowest in the nation _ to the point where many in Illinois side of St L buy their cigs in Mo. _ and have some of that money got to cancer research, etc.; 2.) Raise hotel and rental car taxes. The vast majority of people who use hotels and rental cars are out of towners. Do you really think they'll notice and extra dollar or two on their bill?
Just asking because I can't remember, but when did the CVC already offer $180M?jstriebel wrote:http://live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_cha ... /104693698
You're right. It's a tough puzzle to solve. But there can be a way out. Let's say Kroenke moves to LA. New stadium cost: in excess of $1 billion. Relocation fee: At least $800 million. Then through in associated costs of playing in another stadium while his is being built, plus having practicing facilities, team offices and any related costs with environmental impact issues, etc. You're talking more than $2 billion. Now consider a possible St. Louis solution: NFL stadium fund kicks in $200 million; city and state come up with $400 million (the CVC already was at $180 million, so you need "just" another $220 million), Stan kicks in $400 million and you have a $1 billion stadium. So the question for Stan is: Would you rather kick in $400 million to stay in St. Louis and get a new stadium and be a local hero, or pay more than $2 billion to get a new stadium in LA? Doesn't seem like that tough of a decision to me. Ways for St. Louis and the state to come up with $220 million _ 1.) Raise the cigarette tax, it's already one of the lowest in the nation _ to the point where many in Illinois side of St L buy their cigs in Mo. _ and have some of that money got to cancer research, etc.; 2.) Raise hotel and rental car taxes. The vast majority of people who use hotels and rental cars are out of towners. Do you really think they'll notice and extra dollar or two on their bill?
It was during the arbitration proposals; the CVC arrived at the amount based on the average percentage of public funding used for new NFL stadium construction/improvements league-wide over the past some-odd years.DannyJ wrote:Just asking because I can't remember, but when did the CVC already offer $180M?jstriebel wrote:http://live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_cha ... /104693698
You're right. It's a tough puzzle to solve. But there can be a way out. Let's say Kroenke moves to LA. New stadium cost: in excess of $1 billion. Relocation fee: At least $800 million. Then through in associated costs of playing in another stadium while his is being built, plus having practicing facilities, team offices and any related costs with environmental impact issues, etc. You're talking more than $2 billion. Now consider a possible St. Louis solution: NFL stadium fund kicks in $200 million; city and state come up with $400 million (the CVC already was at $180 million, so you need "just" another $220 million), Stan kicks in $400 million and you have a $1 billion stadium. So the question for Stan is: Would you rather kick in $400 million to stay in St. Louis and get a new stadium and be a local hero, or pay more than $2 billion to get a new stadium in LA? Doesn't seem like that tough of a decision to me. Ways for St. Louis and the state to come up with $220 million _ 1.) Raise the cigarette tax, it's already one of the lowest in the nation _ to the point where many in Illinois side of St L buy their cigs in Mo. _ and have some of that money got to cancer research, etc.; 2.) Raise hotel and rental car taxes. The vast majority of people who use hotels and rental cars are out of towners. Do you really think they'll notice and extra dollar or two on their bill?
- 388
The CVC offered 124m to help Rams with renovations..
I honestly believe this team will stay put here in St.Louis
People in St.Louis are like little Chihuahua's
That's why L.A bullies us cause we allow them too..
If Stan wanted to move this team out he would have said it convincingly once he purchased the team.
The thing that bothers me is that St.Louis seems just let things go and theres next to nil in any corporate commitment to downtown.
This region needs an entire new make over if it ever wants to be competitive and compete with other cities
So heres the question if we do in fact get a new stadium whats going to happen with EJD??
I honestly believe this team will stay put here in St.Louis
People in St.Louis are like little Chihuahua's
That's why L.A bullies us cause we allow them too..
If Stan wanted to move this team out he would have said it convincingly once he purchased the team.
The thing that bothers me is that St.Louis seems just let things go and theres next to nil in any corporate commitment to downtown.
This region needs an entire new make over if it ever wants to be competitive and compete with other cities
So heres the question if we do in fact get a new stadium whats going to happen with EJD??
- 3,766
Playing devils advocate, most of those actions, do not cost him that much. He could be saving face, helping the community so his legacy is not totally tarnished, once he moves or taking steps to improve the team in the community, IF he is not able to achieve his goal of relocation. Obviously, he could be doing things to actually improve his team in this market because he is staying, but none of his actions would lead me to believe that.This actually comes in response to the path the soccer thread had taken, but it applies more to the Rams.
Here's an interesting note regarding Stan's loyalty to St. Louis.
• The Rams do more community service now than the Blues or the Cardinals (who do a very nice amount). It's at or near the top of community service in the NFL.
• The Rams have one of if not the most expansive pre-season (what local broadcasts are limited to) networks of any in the NFL, televising games in 8 states, I believe.
• The Rams have won 7 games each of the past two years and appear to be on the verge of getting over the competitive hump (although their absurdly good division is an obstacle to that).
All of these are developments born from moves Kroenke has made since taking over the franchise a few years ago. He's done more to make the Rams a part of the community, to expand their reach beyond the immediate metro, and to field a good football team than any point during the 15 or 16 years before he exercised his option (save the all too short GSOT glory days).
Remember Stan's also a major reason the Rams came to St. Louis in the first place.
My point isn't that Stan is fiercely loyal to St. Louis. Just that he does seem to appreciate this region, and the part of him we're seeing (or more accurately not seeing) may just be the absurdly successful businessman side.
BrickCity4470 , I think we'd all be really stupid, to ignore or blow off Kroenke's latest actions. I hope you are right, but I am not nearly as confident. If a guy like Jim Thomas, who knows the franchise as much as anyone can, opines that we have a 55% chance of keeping the Rams, I am very worried. I do not like those odds. I can recall Bernie M. saying we have nothing to worry about. He is still saying that. I wonder what he knows. You'd think Jim Thomas would know more than anyone. I hope it all works out in our favor, but my confidence is dwindling with every fact and rumor that comes out.
Looks like the Kroenke - MLS rumor is true, according to the STL Biz Journal...
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 2014-02-05
To me, that does not rule out a dual-use facility in Inglewood. If you read up on Atlanta's new stadium, if can be converted to be used for both soccer and football. This is still very disturbing news either way. Even if the Rams and MLS are unrelated in Kroenke's mind, this still rules out him bringing MLS to St. Louis, unless the LA part of the story is false. I still fear that this is the start of his efforts to have the Rams and the LA Gunners in one venue.
For some, is seems crazy that LA would have 3 MLS teams. Then again, LA and London are both comparably huge cities. London has several EPL teams and other teams that are relegated to lower level pro leagues. LA can pull it off with it's population. The city has more interest in soccer, than it does in American football.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 2014-02-05
To me, that does not rule out a dual-use facility in Inglewood. If you read up on Atlanta's new stadium, if can be converted to be used for both soccer and football. This is still very disturbing news either way. Even if the Rams and MLS are unrelated in Kroenke's mind, this still rules out him bringing MLS to St. Louis, unless the LA part of the story is false. I still fear that this is the start of his efforts to have the Rams and the LA Gunners in one venue.
For some, is seems crazy that LA would have 3 MLS teams. Then again, LA and London are both comparably huge cities. London has several EPL teams and other teams that are relegated to lower level pro leagues. LA can pull it off with it's population. The city has more interest in soccer, than it does in American football.
- 388
How many years is it in the making for a new multi use stadium here???
While 55% isn't breathtakingly high it's better than 30% i agree it's something to worry about very much .St.Louis needs to do everything in it's power to keep this team here..
While 55% isn't breathtakingly high it's better than 30% i agree it's something to worry about very much .St.Louis needs to do everything in it's power to keep this team here..
- 3,766
Interesting article by Sam Farmer, LA times....
http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/ ... z2sSSndACg
http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/ ... z2sSSndACg
Was this just a power play by Kroenke to put the squeeze on St. Louis?
Not entirely. Yes, he wants the city and state to make a more competitive offer to keep the Rams. The sides are now $600 million apart on their bid and ask. But Kroenke isn't bluffing, either. He loves L.A., and a stadium in that area was already approved for Davis before he moved the Raiders in 1994. This is no joke.
Kroenke would need a new environmental impact report for putting a stadium on that land, and that probably would take more than a year. It would be a fight too, because Phil Anschutz and Ed Roski, who are also pitching stadium proposals, wouldn't just roll over.
- 8,912
Confirmed.* The land is for a stadium.
The team will be called the LA Gunners and they'll be a sister MLS team to Arsenal.
Is the sky still falling guys?
*not really confirmed
The team will be called the LA Gunners and they'll be a sister MLS team to Arsenal.
Is the sky still falling guys?
*not really confirmed
- 8,155
snork!moorlander wrote:Confirmed.*
*not really confirmed
- 3,766
^^If you are a Rams fan or fan of MLS, that had dreams Stan would bring MLS to St. Louis, YES!
If Atlanta can put MLS in an NFL stadium, why not Stan in LA?
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2 ... -president
http://www.soccerbyives.net/2013/10/des ... ation.html
If Atlanta can put MLS in an NFL stadium, why not Stan in LA?
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2 ... -president
http://www.soccerbyives.net/2013/10/des ... ation.html
In an interview with WSB-TV in Atlanta, Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank revealed new designs of his proposed $1 billion retractable-roof stadium that will replace the Georgia Dome, including configurations to the stadium when soccer games are held. The photos released show a look similar to BC Place in Vancouver, with partitions that would cover the middle and upper bowls of the stadium from view.
- 3,432
- 3,766
^ Would the "no new taxes for a stadium" crowd, look at that as the kind of taxes they oppose? That I cannot answer. I agree, why not tax visitors, instead of locals.
- 1,792
So the land purchased is probably better size for an MLS team so it is a safe bet that if St. Louis holds on to the Rams that that is what the land would be used for.
But if you were Kronke and you were looking to build an MLS team in LA and a new soccer specific stadium for them which i assume would run at least 500 million then you'd have to subtract that cost off the cost off any relocation costs related to moving the Rams to LA and building a dual use stadium. Or at least consider it as a shared cost. So when you are doing the math that has to be factored in. Also the chance to bring two teams to the LA market might be enough to squeeze some public financing out of LA.
Personally, with the latest news, my gut is telling me we already lost. All the reports seem to indicate that talks are barely progressing between the Rams and the City/County/State. At this point I wouldn't be confident in the Rams staying even if St. Louis offered 1B dollar completely publicly financed stadium simply because it seems like the decision has already been made and Kronke is just trying to navigate the various steps required to allow a move. Theoretically the Rams have to negotiate "in good faith" but if they want to move its not like they could be stopped.
I have feeling we are the backup plan in case the NFL owners baulk. I doubt they would though since everyone with a new stadium deal will probably vote yes, everyone still looking for leverage on their home city (chargers and raiders) will probably vote no. A move to LA would probably increase overall revenues and expansion would throw the number of teams/divisions off balance and spliting revenues with more owners might not raise overall revenues enough to compensate for the expansion. So the relocation fee could logically be a lot less than the expansion fee.
I can't see 3 MLS teams in LA though, Chivas could look to San Diego, San Antonio, or Phoenix and keep the same target demographic market. They could also up and move to any number of other places (*cough* St. Louis *cough*) but they'd probably have to change their marketing strategy.
But if you were Kronke and you were looking to build an MLS team in LA and a new soccer specific stadium for them which i assume would run at least 500 million then you'd have to subtract that cost off the cost off any relocation costs related to moving the Rams to LA and building a dual use stadium. Or at least consider it as a shared cost. So when you are doing the math that has to be factored in. Also the chance to bring two teams to the LA market might be enough to squeeze some public financing out of LA.
Personally, with the latest news, my gut is telling me we already lost. All the reports seem to indicate that talks are barely progressing between the Rams and the City/County/State. At this point I wouldn't be confident in the Rams staying even if St. Louis offered 1B dollar completely publicly financed stadium simply because it seems like the decision has already been made and Kronke is just trying to navigate the various steps required to allow a move. Theoretically the Rams have to negotiate "in good faith" but if they want to move its not like they could be stopped.
I have feeling we are the backup plan in case the NFL owners baulk. I doubt they would though since everyone with a new stadium deal will probably vote yes, everyone still looking for leverage on their home city (chargers and raiders) will probably vote no. A move to LA would probably increase overall revenues and expansion would throw the number of teams/divisions off balance and spliting revenues with more owners might not raise overall revenues enough to compensate for the expansion. So the relocation fee could logically be a lot less than the expansion fee.
I can't see 3 MLS teams in LA though, Chivas could look to San Diego, San Antonio, or Phoenix and keep the same target demographic market. They could also up and move to any number of other places (*cough* St. Louis *cough*) but they'd probably have to change their marketing strategy.
Well, the Rams are currently locked into their current stadium situation until after the 2014-2015 season and have nothing to gain (and, in fact, probably a bit to lose) in terms of leverage from talking now, when the media is stirring things up to seem more dire than ever. So, frankly I can't say I understand why you (and it's not just you, this isn't personal) are drawing the conclusion that it's already over before it even begins.STLEnginerd wrote: Personally, with the latest news, my gut is telling me we already lost. All the reports seem to indicate that talks are barely progressing between the Rams and the City/County/State. At this point I wouldn't be confident in the Rams staying even if St. Louis offered 1B dollar completely publicly financed stadium simply because it seems like the decision has already been made and Kronke is just trying to navigate the various steps required to allow a move. Theoretically the Rams have to negotiate "in good faith" but if they want to move its not like they could be stopped.
If we're sitting here a year from now, and the level of communication is the same, then I'll start to get worried.
- 3,766
If the Rams are not returning calls by Nixon and his crew, who and what actions are being taken behind the scenes, that make Bernie M. so confident, that the Rams are going nowhere. He is so confident, that he calls anyone worried about a Rams move, "chicken littles". I would love to know what is allegedly going on behind the scenes. If Stan truly planned on staying here, why would he not consider his Gunners franchise for St. Louis, in the new stadium being built here?? IMO, the LA Gunners proposal, points to an eventual Rams in LA scenario. He is really throwing out a lot of cash and spreading himself a bit thin, if he does not consolidate the Gunners/Rams moves. He has so much on his plate right now. I know he is worth $5 billion, but he owns so many teams and venues. I wonder how much more he can spend on sports.
BTW, where is Dave Peacock and his people? Everyone, including Nixon have been quiet. I hope this means that both sides are having meaningful, but confidential conversations, behind the scenes. I hope the secrecy is part of the process, so negotiators can do what they do, without public meddling. This is all speculation and the silence could very well be there because Stan is dead set on moving to LA and refuses to talk to STL reps. This drama will play out for years to come. I'd assume we will know a lot more, after the 2014 season, when the Rams become free agents.
rawest1, I think we'd be doing the region a disservice, to take that 'not worried at all' approach. I do not want to be blind-sided, watching the moving trucks on the local news, a year from now. STL and our regional reps, need to get on their horses and fight to keep the Rams here. It will be a huge image, ego & perception blow to St. Louis, to lose the Rams. Talk about moving into a lower tier of cities nationally, perception-wise. Then throw in the all of the other stereotypes like 'most dangerous city' etc... and this could be bad.
BTW, where is Dave Peacock and his people? Everyone, including Nixon have been quiet. I hope this means that both sides are having meaningful, but confidential conversations, behind the scenes. I hope the secrecy is part of the process, so negotiators can do what they do, without public meddling. This is all speculation and the silence could very well be there because Stan is dead set on moving to LA and refuses to talk to STL reps. This drama will play out for years to come. I'd assume we will know a lot more, after the 2014 season, when the Rams become free agents.
rawest1, I think we'd be doing the region a disservice, to take that 'not worried at all' approach. I do not want to be blind-sided, watching the moving trucks on the local news, a year from now. STL and our regional reps, need to get on their horses and fight to keep the Rams here. It will be a huge image, ego & perception blow to St. Louis, to lose the Rams. Talk about moving into a lower tier of cities nationally, perception-wise. Then throw in the all of the other stereotypes like 'most dangerous city' etc... and this could be bad.
Every report about the LA Gunners cites other reports. I still think it's hogwash.
Take this from the UK based Metro:
Maybe he IS planning on the St. Louis Gunners.
Take this from the UK based Metro:
They cite an actual source on Kroenke looking to buy an MLS license, but the fact that it will go in Los Angeles? Well, "reports suggest" that.However, according to the Sun, the businessman is planning on buying a new MLS licence which will enable him to add a second team to the league.
The plans are in their infancy, but reports suggest that the new team would be based in Los Angeles and would be modelled on Arsenal.
Maybe he IS planning on the St. Louis Gunners.
This has also crossed my mind - Given the Chivas situation - If Garber agreed, it would be a mess - Chivas would have to move, they are the 2nd tenant at StubHub w/ Galaxy - just too many problemsjstriebel wrote:Every report about the LA Gunners sites other reports. I still think it's hogwash.
Take this from the UK based Metro:
They site an actual source on Kroenke looking to buy an MLS license, but the fact that it will go in Los Angeles? Well, "reports suggest" that.However, according to the Sun, the businessman is planning on buying a new MLS licence which will enable him to add a second team to the league.
The plans are in their infancy, but reports suggest that the new team would be based in Los Angeles and would be modelled on Arsenal.
Maybe he IS planning on the St. Louis Gunners.
Also - these reports are most likely coming from the UK - where the view is that the US consists of the coasts and Texas
- 933
Why would he be putting a team in St. Louis if he just bought 60 acres in LA? Does a Wal-Mart really take up 60 acres? You know, I honestly wouldn't have a problem with losing the Rams if they were replaced by a soccer team. Soccer is better than football anyway. They could just move into the Dome.
^Rubbish. Opinions on the game of soccer vs. football aside, MLS cannot replace the commodity of an NFL franchise for a city. As Tirico said when we was in STL for MNF....32 pieces of gold out there and you don't want to lose one.
I too am baffled by Bernie's confidence, though, it is comforting for him to be on that side of the argument. He seems to call a spade a spade and at the first sign of threats on the horizon I think he wouldn't hold it in.
My STL flag is going to be present at every game I attend next year. We need commentators talking about how we want them-not questioning our interest as they were last season.
I too am baffled by Bernie's confidence, though, it is comforting for him to be on that side of the argument. He seems to call a spade a spade and at the first sign of threats on the horizon I think he wouldn't hold it in.
My STL flag is going to be present at every game I attend next year. We need commentators talking about how we want them-not questioning our interest as they were last season.
- 3,766
^ If Kroenke is going to be this cut-throat with St. Louis, I would not mind him taking the Rams to LA, if I knew we were going to get the Jags. That is not likely, at least until 2029. Seems like Kahn would have more loyalty to St. Louis, than Stan. Just an hunch....
I can't imagine paying a ton of money for a major Dome redo, just to have him keep that ridiculous lease intact. I would demand an iron-clad lease, that keeps the team here at least 30 years, if not longer. I don't see Stan spending over a billion dollars here for a new stadium, if he is spending close to a billion to build a soccer venue, buy another MLS team and get it up and running. That is almost 2 billion dollars! I CAN see him spending the money for a Rams/Gunners, dual-use facility in LA.
I can't imagine paying a ton of money for a major Dome redo, just to have him keep that ridiculous lease intact. I would demand an iron-clad lease, that keeps the team here at least 30 years, if not longer. I don't see Stan spending over a billion dollars here for a new stadium, if he is spending close to a billion to build a soccer venue, buy another MLS team and get it up and running. That is almost 2 billion dollars! I CAN see him spending the money for a Rams/Gunners, dual-use facility in LA.
1. That land was originally for a Walmart, so apparently a Walmart development (likely other retail along the strip and in the parking lot) does work on that size of land.Gateway City wrote:Why would he be putting a team in St. Louis if he just bought 60 acres in LA? Does a Wal-Mart really take up 60 acres? You know, I honestly wouldn't have a problem with losing the Rams if they were replaced by a soccer team. Soccer is better than football anyway. They could just move into the Dome.
2. Since Stan was able to buy the land because the Walmart was rejected, I don't think that's his plan there. However, Stan develops more than just Walmarts. He just bought 80 acres near Dallas. He buys and develops land. It's his day job. I'm not ruling out this 60 acres as a stadium site (and I certainly believe he knew how the media would spin it), but there are so many options beyond sports for what Kroenke might be planning with it.