urbanSTL

Regardless of what anyone says, LA will get a team soon. There are at least 4 groups trying to accomplish this. There is a lot more money in that town and many businessman from other places, that would jump at the chance to own a team in that market. If the City would have built the stadium right (retractable roof stadium) in the first place and the lease was not so much in favor of the team, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are not many markets, other than LA, that have as much corporate and fan support in general. STL is one of the best sports towns. We have our share of fair weather fans, just like any similiar city. If the Jags can move first, I will not be as worried. If LA is still in the market for a team in 5 or so years, I will be very worried. I beg to differ with anyone who believes that local hotels, bars, restaurants etc.. do not feel a very positive impact from those 8 games + preseason and possible post season. May not be like baseball, but football has an impact on the city.



Back to the dome, if the place wasn't so dark, had more natural light, it would be much better. It also should have blue seats. Whomever decided red seats were needed is an idiot. Who cares if you have blue or red seats for a non-football event. Also, the game day experience is rather boring. That can be fixed with a better marketing/promotions strategy. Regarding tailgating, there is no fix. However, if the team is good, fans will find a way and make the whole experience work. WINNING is the key.

And this alleviates some concern:

At least eight franchises, including the Oakland Raiders, Buffalo Bills and Minnesota Vikings, have been identified as possible targets for relocation, he said, and developers are confident the NFL would approve a move.

However, if the team is good, fans will find a way and make the whole experience work. WINNING is the key.

I actually disagree with this. I think that the experience is key, then you can weather the inevitable down years. Not every NFL team can be successful on the field year-in and year-out. It's something that's very, very difficult to control.

^So if the Rams were in the playoffs and winning every year, you don't think some of these problems might not be quite as elevated? If your selling out every game, winning every year, fans are usually loyal to the end. How could an owner leave that situation? Not likely in this economy especially. I think that franchises like the Packers, Bears, Chiefs etc.. have tradition on their side. We do not. We need to WIN and have a great gameday experience. With a bad team and a good gameday experience, you will still see a lot of empty seats. Nobody wants to see a loser, much less in a dark dungeon.

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:^So if the Rams were in the playoffs and winning every year, you don't think some of these problems might not be quite as elevated? If your selling out every game, winning every year, fans are usually loyal to the end. How could an owner leave that situation? Not likely in this economy especially. I think that franchises like the Packers, Bears, Chiefs etc.. have tradition on their side. We do not. We need to WIN and have a great gameday experience. With a bad team and a good gameday experience, you will still see a lot of empty seats. Nobody wants to see a loser, much less in a dark dungeon.

That's great, it's just that it's not so easily to just decide to win. It's difficult, but a lot easier to create a great gameday experience.

Grover wrote:

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:^So if the Rams were in the playoffs and winning every year, you don't think some of these problems might not be quite as elevated? If your selling out every game, winning every year, fans are usually loyal to the end. How could an owner leave that situation? Not likely in this economy especially. I think that franchises like the Packers, Bears, Chiefs etc.. have tradition on their side. We do not. We need to WIN and have a great gameday experience. With a bad team and a good gameday experience, you will still see a lot of empty seats. Nobody wants to see a loser, much less in a dark dungeon.

That's great, it's just that it's not so easily to just decide to win. It's difficult, but a lot easier to create a great gameday experience.

As some level, isn't this sort of a chicken and egg debate?

The most important ingredient of a "great gameday experience" is passionate fans - that's what all the truly great franchises in sports (the Cardinals, for instance) have in common.

How do you get those passionate fans? By being consistently competitive. You don't have to win every year. You can't, especially in football. But you have to be relevant more often than you're not. You need to give fans a reason to care, ideally over generations.

And when they do, they'll make their own great gameday experience, and it'll be far better than anything that comes from the top down.



FWIW, I don't much care if the Rams are here or not. But if they need a new stadium, I really hope they put it somewhere else. Gobbling up about 16 square blocks of downtown for a huge ugly dome that's used 8 days a year (OK, maybe 16 if you count conventions) just doesn't make much sense. I like the east riverfront idea. Or the Collinsville "soccer stadium" site. Or how about on Pruitt-Igoe if McKee's plan doesn't work?

If there's going to be a new stadium then I would welcome something on the eastside or in St. Louis County. Then there can be real tailgating and the stadium doesn't have to occupy a huge block on the edge of our CBD.

dweebe wrote:^^ I still think the Kosciusko area would be an option.



-Plenty of space for parking lots and tailgating.

-Highways are nearby.

-Soulard and all of it's bars are just across 7th street

-Public transport would be limited to buses and shuttles to the Stadium Metrolink stop.



http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source= ... 16&iwloc=A

Selfishly, I've often thought the same thing. There seems to be plenty of space in Kosciusko right now.



Build the western wall of the new stadium right up to 7th. Heavy on real red brick. Open air, with the field running north/south toward/away from downtown, so you could see the skyline in the near distance. Build south from Marion or Lafeyette.



You could put a single large parking lot to the east or south of the stadium then--and face it, a single large lot would probably help the game day experience with more tailgating.



Quite a nebulous dream, eh?

I'm liking these Dave Checketts ownership group rumblings...

There are a lot of problems here that Checketts can't solve.



First, there's no football tradition. Let's face it, this is a baseball town first, then hockey, then football. There are too many fans here of teams that were good during the years when we didn't have football, and those fans never migrated over to the Rams. Basically, if the team isn't very good, like championship contending level, the fans won't sell the place out.



Which leads to the Dome. It's terrible and not up to part with nearly any stadium in the NFL. The problem is though, move the team outdoors (like football should be), and how many of the wealthy (older) PSL holders will brave the elements?

kujay wrote:First, there's no football tradition. Let's face it, this is a baseball town first, then hockey, then football. There are too many fans here of teams that were good during the years when we didn't have football, and those fans never migrated over to the Rams. Basically, if the team isn't very good, like championship contending level, the fans won't sell the place out.

But that's not true of the last couple years - horrible team, good ticket sales. And I think that an outdoor stadium would attract more people than it would scare off. Anyway, the real old money will be luxury boxes.

kujay wrote:There are a lot of problems here that Checketts can't solve.



First, there's no football tradition. Let's face it, this is a baseball town first, then hockey, then football. There are too many fans here of teams that were good during the years when we didn't have football, and those fans never migrated over to the Rams. Basically, if the team isn't very good, like championship contending level, the fans won't sell the place out.



Which leads to the Dome. It's terrible and not up to part with nearly any stadium in the NFL. The problem is though, move the team outdoors (like football should be), and how many of the wealthy (older) PSL holders will brave the elements?

The Rams have enjoyed very good support since moving here. Despite their horrific play during the pre-Warner/Faulk era, the dome was always sold out. Unfortunately, a string of poor drafts and other bad personnel decisions made by the non-football execs (who are now gone) kept the franchise from building on the momentum of the two Super Bowl appearances (and five playoff appearances) in 99-04.



During 95-04 and even beyond, it was rare to hear of people here rooting for other teams - this city was behind the Rams all the way. It's only after the Scott Linehan debacle did the small band of idiots who still root for the Big Red or other teams come out of the woodwork. My father ingrained in me at a young age the importance of rooting for the home team, so I just don't understand people who have lived here their entire lives who root for other teams.



Tradition takes time to build. Winning accelerates the timetable, but it still takes time. The last two seasons have been a major setback to building that tradition, and the shaky ownership picture just exacerbates the situation. However, the front office is in much better shape. We appear to have a good coach. If Checketts can step up and put a local ownership group together, I think St. Louisans will finally feel like the Rams are "our" team. In my mind, the L.A.-Frontiere-John Shaw connections may have caused some to keep from embracing the franchise fully, but once those ties are severed, things will change. The Rams may be second to the baseball Cardinals, but they'll still be loved.



The dome sucks, but winning somehow makes it seem not so bad. When the team was winning, the dome was an asset - one of the toughest places in the league for opposing teams to play in. And if the team were to somehow get an outdoor stadium built, there's no doubt that fans will still show up - they did for years at Busch Stadium.

Grover wrote:

kujay wrote:First, there's no football tradition. Let's face it, this is a baseball town first, then hockey, then football. There are too many fans here of teams that were good during the years when we didn't have football, and those fans never migrated over to the Rams. Basically, if the team isn't very good, like championship contending level, the fans won't sell the place out.

But that's not true of the last couple years - horrible team, good ticket sales. And I think that an outdoor stadium would attract more people than it would scare off. Anyway, the real old money will be luxury boxes.

Good ticket sales? Multiple games the last two years have been blacked out on local TV because they couldn't even get close to filling the place.



EDIT: And I should add, the bulk of the home games they did manage to sell out where due to opposing teams fans coming in: Bears, Packers, Giants, Cowboys and Steelers come to mind over the last two seasons alone.

kujay wrote:Good ticket sales? Multiple games the last two years have been blacked out on local TV because they couldn't even get close to filling the place.



EDIT: And I should add, the bulk of the home games they did manage to sell out where due to opposing teams fans coming in: Bears, Packers, Giants, Cowboys and Steelers come to mind over the last two seasons alone.

Combine a hopeless team with a horrible economy and people are going to sell.



There have been, what, three games (four, maybe?) blacked out in 14 seasons? That's pretty good, especially when compared to other franchises. The Raiders, for example, have had lots of games blacked out since moving to Oakland.

Hey, I grew up with having the ALL Colts games blacked out so a few here and there seems good to me.

Is a new Rams stadium even a remote possibility at this point?

innov8ion wrote:Is a new Rams stadium even a remote possibility at this point?

I wouldn't think so.

^ I think it's a necessity if they're going to remain in St. Louis past 2014.

Grover wrote:

Deb wrote:

innov8ion wrote:Is a new Rams stadium even a remote possibility at this point?

I wouldn't think so.

^ I think it's a necessity if they're going to remain in St. Louis past 2014.

We might have a better chance of the government taking over the Rams as team mismanagement has spurred too many loss guzzling seasons of late. Rumors indicate that in this scenario, the team may move to China. No comment from the NFL Player's Union. Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... he-US.html

As I have said many times before. A transparent roof that illuminates the dark and dungeon like dome, would do wonders for the atmosphere. Outside of the darkness and caverness feel, if is not a bad facility. I hear it would cost way more than it is worth to put a retractable roof on the dome, but if cheaper, that is the only way to satisfy everyone. How cool would it be to have an open air stadium in that location? Does it solve the tailgating issue, no, but it does address the gameday experience to have a new roof or retractable roof put on the facility. Otherwise, it is not a bad facility. Go Checketts!

I don't know that the question is whether the dome is nice/modern enough as opposed to whether or not it generates enough revenue for the owners (through suites, advertising, etc.).

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:As I have said many times before. A transparent roof that illuminates the dark and dungeon like dome, would do wonders for the atmosphere. Outside of the darkness and caverness feel, if is not a bad facility. I hear it would cost way more than it is worth to put a retractable roof on the dome, but if cheaper, that is the only way to satisfy everyone. How cool would it be to have an open air stadium in that location? Does it solve the tailgating issue, no, but it does address the gameday experience to have a new roof or retractable roof put on the facility. Otherwise, it is not a bad facility. Go Checketts!

Rather than convert the roof on the dome to be re-tracatable, I think it might be cheaper to build an identical stadium next door with no roof. Then 1 hour before game time, check the weather and announce which stadium will host the game. :smt023



Or put the seating on wheels and slide the crowd out from under the roof just before game time.



Actually, I wonder how much it would help if they just shined really bright lights on the ceiling to light the place up like daytime. I think that would do a lot to improve the atmosphere. Maybe project a couple of clouds on the ceiling -- or project real-time digital video of the actual sky from a fish-eye lens camera on the outide of the dome pointed up.

I don't know that the question is whether the dome is nice/modern enough as opposed to whether or not it generates enough revenue for the owners (through suites, advertising, etc.).

I personally think the luxury boxes are very nice. They should generate plenty of revenue. I do not know how many the Dome has versus some of the latest venues, but I think the Dome was made with revenue generating boxes in mind. The biggest complaint has always been the atmosphere and sound system. They were much less prevalent when to Greatest Show was around. The only complaint then was the hard and thin turf, which they replaced. I think that turf was part of what made the Greatest Show so much faster at home. My other complaint besides the darkness and sound is the red seats..WHY not blue???