It all depends on how you define downtown.... certainly Cleveland's (on the downtown lakefront) and Cincy's (on the downtown riverfront) should be considered downtown but as someone above mentioned they have some degree of separation from the core by freeway.
- 597
whether or not Kroenke gets a Super Bowl in an open-air stadium will depend on the success of the Super Bowl next year. Super Bowls in open-air stadiums in cold weather cities are few and far between.
Hosting an annual college bowl game would be much more attractive.
Hosting an annual college bowl game would be much more attractive.
- 8,155
THF Realty TIF Bowl! I agree an open air super bowl is pretty slim odds for Saint Louis. NYC yeah, but hardly bankable for STL.arch_genesis wrote:whether or not Kroenke gets a Super Bowl in an open-air stadium will depend on the success of the Super Bowl next year. Super Bowls in open-air stadiums in cold weather cities are few and far between.
Hosting an annual college bowl game would be much more attractive.
- 3,767
This could be good news for the Rams in St. Louis, until the next
LA stadium rumor starts... With Tim Leiweke out and AEG being run by
Phil Anschutz (a guy that has had negative interactions with the NFL),
the Farmers Field threat is dead, for now. Now, if we could get a
deal done in STL!!
LA stadium rumor starts... With Tim Leiweke out and AEG being run by
Phil Anschutz (a guy that has had negative interactions with the NFL),
the Farmers Field threat is dead, for now. Now, if we could get a
deal done in STL!!
- 2,929
^Solid news here. Leiweke was the main face of the NFL going to LA, and now he's gone. The company he worked for, AEG (Anschutz Entertainment Group), is no longer being sold, as founder Phil Anschutz is stopping the sale and is looking to grab the reins, demanding that the NFL show it wants to be in LA.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... 1102.story
While I don't know much about Anschutz' relationship with the NFL itself, it doesn't bode well for Farmers Field that its former leader has gone as the old one is returning with demands.
Meanwhile... Godspeed, Steven Jackson. You were a great Ram, and loyal to the team throughout all these losing seasons. You were the true anchor of the team all this time, and you will be missed. Plus, you've got to give it up to a 6'5" running back that could run through defenses trying to tackle him.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... 1102.story
While I don't know much about Anschutz' relationship with the NFL itself, it doesn't bode well for Farmers Field that its former leader has gone as the old one is returning with demands.
Meanwhile... Godspeed, Steven Jackson. You were a great Ram, and loyal to the team throughout all these losing seasons. You were the true anchor of the team all this time, and you will be missed. Plus, you've got to give it up to a 6'5" running back that could run through defenses trying to tackle him.
- 3,767
^Leiweke also had a ton of political clout, was the face of AEG, was well liked in LA and was the major player at AEG, promoting the Farmers Field proposal. He is not
nearly as abrasive as the owner, Mr. Anschutz. He all but demanded a significant piece of
any team moving there and also wants significant pieces of the rest of the pie. The NFL
was not happy with his demands. The NFL does not let anyone call the shots for them! The deal does not appear to be a money maker, as it sits, for the NFL or any owner. I hope this kills the AEG deal. That seemed to be the best
deal out of the proposals in LA. The City of Industry/Ed Roski proposal is not as attractive, nor is a rehab of the LA Coliseum. I have to think that other proposals will
come up, but as of now, the most attractive proposal, Farmers Field, is not looking good.
GO ST. LOUIS RAMS!!!!
^Agree..... Thanks & Best wishes to SJ39. . .
nearly as abrasive as the owner, Mr. Anschutz. He all but demanded a significant piece of
any team moving there and also wants significant pieces of the rest of the pie. The NFL
was not happy with his demands. The NFL does not let anyone call the shots for them! The deal does not appear to be a money maker, as it sits, for the NFL or any owner. I hope this kills the AEG deal. That seemed to be the best
deal out of the proposals in LA. The City of Industry/Ed Roski proposal is not as attractive, nor is a rehab of the LA Coliseum. I have to think that other proposals will
come up, but as of now, the most attractive proposal, Farmers Field, is not looking good.
GO ST. LOUIS RAMS!!!!
^Agree..... Thanks & Best wishes to SJ39. . .
- 1,864
I still find it highly ironic (and somewhat humerous) that a stadium company was attempting to hold the league "hostage" by trying to work the system. AEG thought they could strong arm the NFL into providing a team (and ownership) to them if they opened up the LA market by building the facility. Kind of backwards from the whole team threatening to leave unless a stadium is built ordeal.
- 11K
Despite Ray Hartman's essay, the NFL is relatively happy having LA empty.
Here's some insight:gone corporate wrote: While I don't know much about Anschutz' relationship with the NFL itself,
http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/ ... 721.column
Also if someone made a movie about this whole situation, Michael Douglas should play Philip Anschutz, in my opinion.
At any rate......
All this does is just buy us some time. People like Bernie Miklasz, Jim Thomas and Randy Karraker continue to say that a lot of discussions are going behind the scenes involving local business leaders and politicians to put together a deal to keep the Rams here for good.
Let's hope they know what they're doing, and they work quickly enough.
- 3,433
Atlanta stadium moving forward. 1 billion dollars with $200m from the public via hotel tax. The other $800 million split between Falcons, NFL, and PSLs. They are looking at two sights both downtown. Could be a precedent for the new Rams stadium.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-n ... eal/nWstz/
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-n ... eal/nWstz/
Definitely can understand the time and effort, negotiations and individual sites being vetted. But it would sure be nice if Stan K would come out and give a straight answer on what he wants for the Rams at the end of day, open air stadium? retractable roof? Location that favors parking revenues? development options? Stay downtown/Riverfront Location?
I doubt very much that he wants anything to do with the EJ Dome but understands contracts very well and what his organization was obligated to do. Now that is coming to close. Time to admit it.
I doubt very much that he wants anything to do with the EJ Dome but understands contracts very well and what his organization was obligated to do. Now that is coming to close. Time to admit it.
It's probably not time to admit at the very earliest until April 1, when the CVC is obligated to respond to the arbitration ruling.dredger wrote:Definitely can understand the time and effort, negotiations and individual sites being vetted. But it would sure be nice if Stan K would come out and give a straight answer on what he wants for the Rams at the end of day, open air stadium? retractable roof? Location that favors parking revenues? development options? Stay downtown/Riverfront Location?
I doubt very much that he wants anything to do with the EJ Dome but understands contracts very well and what his organization was obligated to do. Now that is coming to close. Time to admit it.
- 597
we got Jake Long. Somebody send Fisher Snead and Demoff to the state legislature. I'm confident they'll comeback with the Trade Hub, Historic Tax Credits and Mass Transit funding
Thanks for the update on the earlier post. For some reason I thought Rams response was 30 days after CVC's response, or is and just haven't thought about the timeline at the moment.rawest1 wrote:^ And perhaps a new stadium
April 1 can be a cruel day.
My wish - Rams propose an open air N. Riverfront stadium between bordered by a new blvd after the raised section of I-70 is turn down to the east and the river to the west, Pinnacle casino to the south and new MRB to the north on April 1st. You get a great clean slate development opportunity across the street in Bottle Works and parking/tailgaiting opportunitiy along the riverfront. Definitely think this is best idea that has been put out there.
For fun, Stan K throws in a MSL team playing at a new Stadium next to Union Station because the Missouir Supreme court came up with a Northside ruling one way or another. Tops it off with stating, Not only will we keep RAMS in St. Louis we are going to make Clark Ave the best dam sports street in the country after I put the RAM next to the Big Muddy.
- 597
^ that's probably the best location on the missouri side of the river - the skyline view is pretty nice. I wouldn't be too upset if that wound up being the site chosen.
But just out of curiosity if you cleared 40 acres just north of the new MSRB (up to chambers), how many parking spaces do you think could be squeezed in there?
But just out of curiosity if you cleared 40 acres just north of the new MSRB (up to chambers), how many parking spaces do you think could be squeezed in there?
I can't help but think that CVC and RAMS for that fact have been waiting for the Arch Grounds Tax to get voted on. Two different things, but St. Louis City and County just committed themselves a big chunk of tax revenues to Arch that must have some impace on the discussions going forward.rawest1 wrote:It's probably not time to admit at the very earliest until April 1, when the CVC is obligated to respond to the arbitration ruling.dredger wrote:Definitely can understand the time and effort, negotiations and individual sites being vetted. But it would sure be nice if Stan K would come out and give a straight answer on what he wants for the Rams at the end of day, open air stadium? retractable roof? Location that favors parking revenues? development options? Stay downtown/Riverfront Location?
I doubt very much that he wants anything to do with the EJ Dome but understands contracts very well and what his organization was obligated to do. Now that is coming to close. Time to admit it.
What implications do you see?dredger wrote:I can't help but think that CVC and RAMS for that fact have been waiting for the Arch Grounds Tax to get voted on. Two different things, but St. Louis City and County just committed themselves a big chunk of tax revenues to Arch that must have some impace on the discussions going forward.rawest1 wrote:It's probably not time to admit at the very earliest until April 1, when the CVC is obligated to respond to the arbitration ruling.dredger wrote:Definitely can understand the time and effort, negotiations and individual sites being vetted. But it would sure be nice if Stan K would come out and give a straight answer on what he wants for the Rams at the end of day, open air stadium? retractable roof? Location that favors parking revenues? development options? Stay downtown/Riverfront Location?
I doubt very much that he wants anything to do with the EJ Dome but understands contracts very well and what his organization was obligated to do. Now that is coming to close. Time to admit it.
^ I wouldn't be surprised if some of City and County elected officials already had backroom discussions on horse trading support, Arch Grounds Tax for RAMS stadium. Between Arch Grounds, RAMS Stadium, Westport metrolink line and Downtwon Streetcar you got some significant expenditures in the next five to ten years.
Personally, I hope the RAMS propose an open air north riverfront stadium with the raised section of I-70 coming down for a blvd. However, I have a tough time seeing St. Louis county elected officials supporting the Arch Grounds Tax, New Downtown RAMS stadium and a downtown streetcar over Westport metrolink extension in return for some additional tax revenues going to parks/trails that passed yesterday.
My bet right now is county wants a RAMS stadium at end of day and the pitch to the RAMS organization will be a greenfield site with unlimited parking/tailgating revenues.
Personally, I hope the RAMS propose an open air north riverfront stadium with the raised section of I-70 coming down for a blvd. However, I have a tough time seeing St. Louis county elected officials supporting the Arch Grounds Tax, New Downtown RAMS stadium and a downtown streetcar over Westport metrolink extension in return for some additional tax revenues going to parks/trails that passed yesterday.
My bet right now is county wants a RAMS stadium at end of day and the pitch to the RAMS organization will be a greenfield site with unlimited parking/tailgating revenues.
- 11K
If the city were smart they would feint a love of a downtown stadium and eventually relent on a stadium in the County as a bargaining chip.
I have to agree, believe you would see more growth in the core if city would pursue an agenda of pushing for support of Downtown/Central Corridor/NS streetcar, EDJ improvements specfic to convention space, removal of raised section of I70 and even a MLS stadium next to Union Station in return for the RAMS heading west. Even though I still think downtown riverfront is still the coolest place for the RAMSAlex Ihnen wrote:If the city were smart they would feint a love of a downtown stadium and eventually relent on a stadium in the County as a bargaining chip.
- 2,386
^I may be completely incorrect but I thought it was even more specific, and set up a taxation "zone" in which tax would be collected for the construction and maintenance of the proposed streetcar.
- 1,792
^that is correct so the only reason to be against it is because its a waste of money 
...oh that was IMHO
...oh that was IMHO