urbanSTL

innov8ion wrote:

rawest1 wrote:

innov8ion wrote: Way too late. The Rams would be gone by then.

Why do you think that, and where would they go?

The Rams can leave after the 2014 season but also have the option to lease until the contract ends in 2020 or so. I can see them leasing until the new stadium is built -- say 2016-2017? Why would the Rams wait until 2021? They're forcing the issue now and the state should be able to find money before then.

The current lease would begin going year-to-year in 2015, and runs until 2025.

The Rams could easily wait until 2021 because they currently enjoy arguably the most team-friendly stadium situation in all of professional sports. Despite what you just said, I don't see any evidence of the Rams "forcing the issue" whatsoever, and I don't think they have much incentive to do so because, again, their stadium situation is so team-friendly.

I suppose it's possible the state could come up with the money before then, but why do that? It seems clear enough that one stadium is coming off the books in 2021, thereby allowing them to place a new stadium on the budget without having to free up new money.

innov8ion wrote:The Rams can leave after the 2014 season but also have the option to lease until the contract ends in 2020 or so. I can see them leasing until the new stadium is built -- say 2016-2017? Why would the Rams wait until 2021? They're forcing the issue now and the state should be able to find money before then.

Yep.

innov8ion wrote:^ Stan Kroenke is nearly 66. Think he's going to wait until he's 74? Doubt it... He doesn't care how the state gets its money, just that it does.

We're both just speculating, but I respectfully disagree. The dude always takes his time with his business deals. Buying into his minority share of the Rams to move them here was last-minute only after the expansion bids failed, exercising his first right-of-refusal and becoming majority owner was last-minute, and I personally suspect that this stadium deal will be, in typical Kroenke fashion, pretty last-minute. Only after all ducks are in a row, on both sides.

That said, the wrangling and ironing out of details will be and probably already is ongoing.

innov8ion wrote:^ Stan Kroenke is nearly 66. Think he's going to wait until he's 74? Doubt it... He doesn't care how the state gets its money, just that it does.

His problem is he has no great options on where to go. I don't think there are any viable suitors at the moment and he'll have to be patient and hope that the region can put together enough of a package (most likely parking revenue, hotel and car rental taxes, and other sources that don't directly obligate MO taxpayers) sooner than later.

gary kreie wrote:Watching BBC, I saw Khan pop up in a sports story here. They were interviewing him. I think he bought a soccer team. So will his team compete against Stan's team?

Yes, he bought Fullham, which plays in the EPL, same as Arsenal.

The Raiders are now talking about a 50,000 seat stadium as the city of Oakland panics under thoughts of losing all 3 of their current sports teams.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-n ... um-oakland

innov8ion wrote:Sure, a man of Kroenke's stature doesn't attain it without practicing due diligence. Ducks must be lined in a row and all that. I'm just saying, I doubt putting together a stadium package will take 8 years. Just my opinion...

From the time new stadium discussions begin in earnest to the time when new stadiums are agreed to, ~8 years is pretty much the norm, if we're using Minnesota, Atlanta, San Francisco, and others as a frame of reference. Not saying it couldn't take fewer (or more) years, but it seems about right based on recent history.

Rams first NFL team to use Google Glass. I like the organization's forward thinking.
BTW, the ball comes fast!

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/ ... approaches

^Highway access isn't the best there :/

dmelsh wrote:I know a location that is ripe for development and large enough.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61088167@N04/9315926694/

Having trouble loading an image of it. Can anyone help?

In the full editor click "Img" and then paste this "http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5516/9315 ... 3fd4_b.jpg" between the code ends:

pat wrote:^How so? Cass will go directly to I-70. Jefferson goes directly to I-64.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just when I consider our current sports venues are all highway adjacent (Rams, Busch, and EJD), I see it as a potential issue - whether real or perceived.

MarkHaversham wrote:

DogtownBnR wrote:Good article on why the Rams are NOT moving...... We can only hope!

http://www.101sports.com/2013/07/15/ram ... they-seem/

Not sure I see why an MLS team is so likely, but here's hoping.

One may not be "so likely," but considering the only real obstacles to St. Louis having a team are 1) someone with deep enough pockets to own a team and 2) build an MLS-adequate stadium, this will probably be our best shot in decades to come

dmelsh wrote:I know a location that is ripe for development and large enough.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61088167@N04/9315926694/

Having trouble loading an image of it. Can anyone help?

As someone who attends, got married and baptized both my kids at St. Stanislaus: I have just a few issues with your proposal.

^ Ha. I hadn't looked at it that closely. St. Stan may be the only force able to withstand the Ram's Stan.

Not to be a downer/naysayer/pontificator, but I don't think a stadium revitalizes anything. There have been some good recent articles about the limitations of stadium development to do just that - the most recent being in Atlanta, and that's 82 games. The neighborhood around Lucas Oil stadium is another. That said, Indy might be an OK example of how an NFL stadium can be urban, but enough on the edge of a downtown as to not negatively affect it.