urbanSTL

Who knows what the sources are, but this isn't great.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ It isn't covered by the Rams currently, but it might in the future; I've always said that. Also, Blitz said in court that the CIty may be asked for more than $6 million. Again, details matter so we'll just have to see.

The point is the stadium will likely cost the citizens nothing.

But I don't believe it will be built in the city. There was another opinion piece in today's paper about solving income inequality through donations from the super wealthy instead of building a new stadium. I agree with the goal, but it shouldn't be one OR the other. Development creates jobs. I think the only way to pry big money away from rich people for jobs is by raising their taxes, or encouraging development.

I posted a link yesterday from an interview on insidestl with this Benjamin Allbright ‎character. Come to find out, he is based in Denver and is Josh Kroenke's little scoop server boy. No clue how legit the info is, that says the Rams are 99.9% moving to LA, but it would seem as if Kroenke is using this guy to spew his propaganda. Just wanted to post that, since this guy is the only one that has come out and said almost 100%, he knows the outcome. The Raiders and Policy have already shot down his "false" reports on the sale of the Raiders.
In case you didn't see the interview:
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... Louis.aspx

Also, on the Carson front, Policy on 'But Seriously'

http://nbcbayarea.csnbayarea.com/raider ... la-efforts

dweebe wrote:

goat314 wrote:I'm also not convinced about San Antonio, do they even have a stadium proposal? St. Louis seems to be a more viable threat.

San Antonio has the Alamodome ready to roll and already getting updates. Plus if you can sell Austin and San Antonio as one market you're looking at 4 million people.

The Alamodome is older than the Edward Jones dome. Do they have a $700 million upgrade plan for a 10 year lease?

^ That is a good point that many seem to overlook when mentioning how the CVC "defaulted" on the lease. Who in the h-ll is going to do a $750 Million upgrade and only get another 10 years guaranteed. I would have made the Rams sign a 30 or more year lease if they agreed to that deal. I bet anything, they wouldn't sign an extension. That is what makes the lease "breach" even more bogus. I guess we (STL) shot ourselves in the foot by allowing for the 'top tier' provision in the first place, but those were desperate times. Goes back to building a stadium before you have a team. If that wasn't the case, we may not be in this mess. The Rams would have come without the 'top tier' provision, I'd guess. Too much money on the table. Stan K. is now just taking advantage of the situation to line his pockets. It is sickening! If only Eagleton and his group had a crystal ball!

Vinnie B. on insidestl this morning. Blah, blah, blah... Rams and Chargers to Inglewood, if he had a gun to his head and had to pick. . . .
Positive, Carson & Inglewood neck & neck:

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Neck.aspx

blzhrpmd2 wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/los-ange ... nfl-2015-8

Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I'm not getting the "extra" home game if one of the teams flips to the NFC West. No NFC team ever plays the same AFC division annually.

I'm wondering if the line got shuffled. Seems like maybe belonged above the paragraph/sentence before it. If you make that edit, then everything makes sense.

Guessing that's all that happened.

dweebe wrote:

DogtownBnR wrote:^ That is a good point that many seem to overlook when mentioning how the CVC "defaulted" on the lease. Who in the h-ll is going to do a $750 Million upgrade and only get another 10 years guaranteed. I would have made the Rams sign a 30 or more year lease if they agreed to that deal. I bet anything, they wouldn't sign an extension. That is what makes the lease "breach" even more bogus. I guess we (STL) shot ourselves in the foot by allowing for the 'top tier' provision in the first place, but those were desperate times. Goes back to building a stadium before you have a team. If that wasn't the case, we may not be in this mess. The Rams would have come without the 'top tier' provision, I'd guess. Too much money on the table. Stan K. is now just taking advantage of the situation to line his pockets. It is sickening! If only Eagleton and his group had a crystal ball!

It's my understanding the Rams wouldn't even agree to a token 5 or 10 year extension for the $700 million renovation of the Dome. We could have dropped that much and still had the Rams leave. I hope that's being saved as a trump card to be dropped at the right time, which could be here in October.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

You're wrong, but only because of the contract.

Had the CVC accepted the Rams proposal (either initially or following arbitration), the Rams would have been bound by the original terms of the lease, which would have meant another 10 years.

The Rams didn't have the right to go year-to-year until the CVC rejected the Rams proposal and the arbitration ruling. At that point alternative lease terms kicked in, and that's where we are today.

I see. I misunderstood.

Yes, I believe you're likely correct about that. And that's why it was a non-starter from the get go. Evidently Kroenke and the Rams were never willing to engage the city/region in actual negotiations.

They followed their rights as dictated by the lease (as did the CVC), but never made an actual effort to find a long-term solution here.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... iders.aspx

I think this perception that STL is not a good market for the NFL, will be a tough challenge to overcome, for Mr. Peacock. I think Kroenke and his cronies, have tried to trash STL and that is why you have guys like Mark Davis, not even considering STL. They are misinformed and the recipients of exaggerations and lies. Kroenke will do what it takes to get what he wants in LA, even if that means ruining STL's reputation even further, as an NFL market. When an owner, one that could relocate, seems to be so ignorant about the STL market, clearly, people nationally are writing us off as a dead city. Some of that could be part of the media's portrayal of STL in the aftermath of Ferg. Who knows, but Dave is going to have his work cut out for him. I'd say, more so with defending the market, versus wowing them with the stadium.

Does Kroenke currently benefit from a lot of government incentives around STL and in the state of Missouri with his developments?

Do our politicians have the guts to play as dirty as he has and make hell for his businesses here?

DogtownBnR wrote:http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... iders.aspx

I think this perception that STL is not a good market for the NFL, will be a tough challenge to overcome, for Mr. Peacock. I think Kroenke and his cronies, have tried to trash STL and that is why you have guys like Mark Davis, not even considering STL. They are misinformed and the recipients of exaggerations and lies. Kroenke will do what it takes to get what he wants in LA, even if that means ruining STL's reputation even further, as an NFL market. When an owner, one that could relocate, seems to be so ignorant about the STL market, clearly, people nationally are writing us off as a dead city. Some of that could be part of the media's portrayal of STL in the aftermath of Ferg. Who knows, but Dave is going to have his work cut out for him. I'd say, more so with defending the market, versus wowing them with the stadium.

I've long suspected that Wayne Weaver took advantage of owner ignorance concerning city limits in St. Louis vs. Jacksonville back in 1995 when he pitched Jackonsville for an expansion team over St. Louis. We're easy pickns' until we consolidate into a single regional government we can call St. Louis City.

roger wyoming II wrote:^^ I'm sure he's received tens of millions when you add up all the TIF, etc. he's received for his various developments but I'm not sure there is too much he's received that you could take away. Interestingly, Kroenke Group just walked away from a really large proposed project for "downtown" Overland Park after the city said there was too much surface parking... kudos to them for sticking to their comprehensive plan.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure they can't retroactively take much back, but they can refuse to give him such things moving forward. I hope that they will.

As Dave Peacock said himself, he likes to work in fact. The facts are STL is what it is. The 21st largest TV market and a metropolitan area that fits the NFL very well. The NFL can twist it to fit their agenda, but Dave shouldn't have to work very hard to show that STL is extremely viable to anyone who wants to really try.

Mark Davis is a piece of work.

Oh, it's happening....and the rumors floating around right now are crazy!!

^ the stadium is real and its fantastic!

roger wyoming II wrote:^ the stadium is real and its fantastic!

When can we expect to hear more?

blzhrpmd2 wrote:I liked Balzer's point last week that the local/national rhetoric is that season ticket sales are down. Apparently there's around 8,000 available for the opener. Given that we averaged 57,000 the last few years, there isn't a drop at all, simply the same level of support for an organization giving us nothing to hang our hat on.

I see the point, totally. Completely. And I get thoroughly frustrated when outsiders don't understand how much support there really is here and that attendance is NOT a fair metric given the historically bad football and lingering lack of commitment.

With that said, as far as talking points go, "our attendance isn't down, it's always that bad!" isn't a real solid argument for St. Louis to be making...

It's best that we just steer clear of that and talk about why we've been put in this position to begin with, I think.