urbanSTL

gary kreie wrote:

StlAlex wrote:

gary kreie wrote:If you plan on being in the playoffs in January, you owe the fans a lid. What was Buffalo thinking? I was glad we had one in the glory years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fans wanted outdoor I'm pretty sure.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

Has any NFL team gone from dome to no dome? I can only think of one — Seattle — and it’s not a very cold snowy city. And they have roofs over most of the fans for rain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote:

gary kreie wrote:

StlAlex wrote:Fans wanted outdoor I'm pretty sure.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

Has any NFL team gone from dome to no dome? I can only think of one — Seattle — and it’s not a very cold snowy city. And they have roofs over most of the fans for rain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rams were supposed to.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:58 PM - Jan 27

DogtownBnR wrote:I know this is not a popular opinion, but it seems like NFL cities get more love & press in the media. The NFL, thanks to gambling & the overall growth of the sport has become so much more than it was even when the Rams were here. I know the direct economic impact is not massive, but the other things brought to a city should be considered. The PR, press, notoriety, the ability to offer that amenity to prospective residents, etc. etc. I understand many of the owners are horrible people & they totally screwed STL. That being said, what would have that North Riverfront stadium done for us. We'd have a team, a developed north riverfront, the Landing & Casino would have benefited, we'd probably have World Cup games here & we'd have that PR, press & notoriety. Not to mention, KC couldn't hold the fact that they have a team over our heads. So many good things would have come from us having a team here, looking beyond the financial impact. I SO wish our local 'leaders' didn't screw it up with the Big Red. It would have been so cool to have the baseball & football Cardinals here, along with a 50+ year history of NFL football here in STL. Looking at a city like Nashville, KC & Indy frustrates me to no end. We SHOULD have grown so much more over the last 30 years, yet here we are. 

It's not an "opinion", it's a fact that NFL cities get a lot more positive attention and have more opportunities for large and unique events than non-NFL cities. This is a large part in why STL should try to get another NFL team should the opportunity arise.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

beer city wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:58 PM - Jan 27

DogtownBnR wrote:I know this is not a popular opinion, but it seems like NFL cities get more love & press in the media. The NFL, thanks to gambling & the overall growth of the sport has become so much more than it was even when the Rams were here. I know the direct economic impact is not massive, but the other things brought to a city should be considered. The PR, press, notoriety, the ability to offer that amenity to prospective residents, etc. etc. I understand many of the owners are horrible people & they totally screwed STL. That being said, what would have that North Riverfront stadium done for us. We'd have a team, a developed north riverfront, the Landing & Casino would have benefited, we'd probably have World Cup games here & we'd have that PR, press & notoriety. Not to mention, KC couldn't hold the fact that they have a team over our heads. So many good things would have come from us having a team here, looking beyond the financial impact. I SO wish our local 'leaders' didn't screw it up with the Big Red. It would have been so cool to have the baseball & football Cardinals here, along with a 50+ year history of NFL football here in STL. Looking at a city like Nashville, KC & Indy frustrates me to no end. We SHOULD have grown so much more over the last 30 years, yet here we are. 

It's not an "opinion", it's a fact that NFL cities get a lot more positive attention and have more opportunities for large and unique events than non-NFL cities. This is a large part in why STL should try to get another NFL team should the opportunity arise.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

I cannot see any scenario where we get a team, wish I was wrong but just cannot see it happening 

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:52 AM - Feb 18

beer city wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:58 PM - Jan 27

It's not an "opinion", it's a fact that NFL cities get a lot more positive attention and have more opportunities for large and unique events than non-NFL cities. This is a large part in why STL should try to get another NFL team should the opportunity arise.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

I cannot see any scenario where we get a team, wish I was wrong but just cannot see it happening 

Lots of things that seem impossible today will be possible tomorrow. No one in 1950 would have believed you if you told them St. Louis would lose 550k people over the next 70 years but it absolutely happened.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:44 PM - Feb 19

They could have easily done it for the Bears if Illinois was as interesting in socializing billionaires like Missouri and Indiana are.

And how good an Indiana site is is basically entirely determined by how good the public transit connection is to downtown.

Will still be a big blow to the city both economically and especially to their ego.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

keepstlbrick wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

4:44 PM - Feb 19

They could have easily done it for the Bears if Illinois was as interesting in socializing billionaires like Missouri and Indiana are.

And how good an Indiana site is is basically entirely determined by how good the public transit connection is to downtown.

Will still be a big blow to the city both economically and especially to their ego.

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

Look I’m a D just as much as anyone, but I haven’t seen Illinois pony up as much money and work into doing anything for metro east (it’s comparably historically divested area to NW Indiana), like Indiana just did for its most divested region historically. IN deserves some credit here

addxb2 wrote: ↑

6:18 PM - Feb 19

No where near a done deal. If it does happen, Chicago will have a second team before St. Louis has a team on the east riverfront. Laughable to imagine the people of Chicagoland would allow their legislature to negotiate incentives for a St. Louis team after playing hardball on incentives in Chicago. 

Bart Harley Jarvis wrote:^ I think it's still posturing from the Bears. Hammond is really far away from the northern suburbs, where a lot of the Bears' $$ and fanbase is.  Arlington Heights (and DT Chicago) are much more accessible for the majority of Bears fans.

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑

9:30 AM - Feb 20

The Bears situation resembles the Chiefs move a bit. Pit two states against each other, hold few to no discussions to one of them, get your way with the smaller of the two, leave your previous home state and city left wondering how to handle demolition of your present-day home.

framer wrote: ↑

1:23 AM - Feb 27

Well, hey; he learned from the best.