urbanSTL

beer city wrote: For instance the Cardinals unveiled the design for the Busch III in 2000 - it took 3 years of negotiations and veiled threats to agree to it and start construction, completion in 2006 - but, there were rumors - all of which turned out to be true - of the new stadium, size and location that I heard as early as 1998, with the Rams we are 2 years past the call for a new stadium

No, we aren't. At no point since the Rams moved here have they asked for a new stadium. They have offered proposals, as part of a structured negotiation, reflecting their interpretation of "top tier" as set out in the lease, because they (along with the CVC) were required to do that. It was built into the lease.

That is very different from a "call for a new stadium."

beer city wrote:

rawest1 wrote:

beer city wrote: For instance the Cardinals unveiled the design for the Busch III in 2000 - it took 3 years of negotiations and veiled threats to agree to it and start construction, completion in 2006 - but, there were rumors - all of which turned out to be true - of the new stadium, size and location that I heard as early as 1998, with the Rams we are 2 years past the call for a new stadium

No, we aren't. At no point since the Rams moved here have they asked for a new stadium. They have offered proposals, as part of a structured negotiation, reflecting their interpretation of "top tier" as set out in the lease, because they (along with the CVC) were required to do that. It was built into the lease.

That is very different from a "call for a new stadium."

I should have said "stadium process" rather than call for a new stadium, still under the optimistic of assumptions the renovation of the dome was a long shot, there had to be someone with a plan "B" on at least one side of the table

Could you explain a bit more what you mean by that last part?

No, Gary, I did not buy a ticket. I accept the blame as a regional fan who did not travel a few hundred miles to the game. The Bears fans outclassed me in that arena. I am not currently a season ticket holder as I live out of town and work does not allow travel most weekends. Hopefully that will change by next season.

If I were a season ticket holder who lived in the metro area, however, I would not be worrying about what team the Rams were playing, or if I could travel to other teams' stadia to watch, if opposing fans were close enough to come in and buy tickets, or if they played in the Dome, at Matthew's Dickey, or the old Soccer Haus. I bought the tickets to watch the Rams and hopefully succeed. I'd be attending the games I paid money for and support the team. If I didn't care that much about going but would rather show my support by watching or listening, I wouldn't buy the tickets. For crying out loud, there are 8 games. This isn't baseball or hockey where missing a game or 2 isn't a big deal. What happens to peoples' interest and desire to watch the game between purchase of the tickets and a few losses. If it goes away, then I would have to question one's interest level, as would the national media. St Louis may not be bad football fans as I agree, these are national trends. We unfortunately don't have the luxury of an extended history of support and success. But what is everyone waiting for right now in 2013? Isn't this a horrible time to stop going while ownership debates what to do? If Stan can sit and gain some leverage by keeping silent, wouldn't we want to gain some leverage as a region by saying, hey, we did our part by showing up to cheer no matter what?

But what am I thinking? Home team fans at home game? Preposterous. Fans only go when a team is competitive. Obviously I'm wrong because all of this fan apathy is:

"..... natural. It's logical. It's reasonable." -jstreibel.

I sure hope it will be glorious in the near future too, but help me understand that statement: Past performance is more important than current performance. Love and support of a team is secondary to how well they do and if you can make a quick buck off a ticket. Band wagon fan behavior when it comes to attendance is the new norm. So when many current season ticket holders reflect on their desire to watch the game vs. the Bears, this was the thought process: " Well, the Rams are 4-6. Inconsistent, but have shown some signs of improvement. They just beat the hell out of Indy and our shiny new draft pick (who has absolutely nothing to do with anything before 2013) just came out of nowhere to prove he can be special. They are fresh off a bye week. Stacy is really running well. We are playing a big media market team beaten up with injuries and question marks at the line of scrimmage. We have a second year head coach who was 7-8-1 last year. But you know what, they were really horrible the year before that and only won two games. And, man, 2 coaches ago they didn't do much either. Well, I guess since it's so natural and logical to ignore the current season and the previous season, I'll put my ticket up for sale and not go. I'll completely ignore the letter Kevin Demoff sent out a few weeks ago about their excitement about the future urging for fan support in the form of warm bodies crying out for Rams' success."

I need a better explanation of how this is logical, natural, and reasonable. Last season 2-14 and multiple weeks in a row of no signs of progress in 2013-fine. But that's not what happened over the last 2 weeks or last season. After so many years of absolutely nothing, how are we not chomping at the bit to get in there and see firsthand what they did in Indy? If so natural, then why are there any Redskins fans at the game happening right now (2013: 3-7)? Another SF TD and all I see in the crowd near the endzone are a lot of pissed off and quiet faces (yes, some definite cheers for SF at times tonight but the announcers are not calling out difficulty finding WASH fans as they did yesterday afternoon in STL: again: public opinion destroyed). I suppose they are not natural in WASH. And don't quote me their playoff run from last year as a reason to go tonight because clearly last season's results are not a factor. So maybe 2 seasons ago, 3 seasons ago, as that is how a logical fan makes a decision to attend the game: They were 5-11 and 6-10 respectively. Weird. But again, I'm the idiot. St Louis Rams fans should have no concern for their actions this season as they are model examples of behavior with your team's future on the line.

blzhrpmd2 wrote: If so natural, then why are there any Redskins fans at the game happening right now (2013: 3-7)? Another SF TD and all I see in the crowd near the endzone are a lot of pissed off and quiet faces (yes, some definite cheers for SF at times tonight but the announcers are not calling out difficulty finding WASH fans as they did yesterday afternoon in STL: again: public opinion destroyed). I suppose they are not natural in WASH. And don't quote me their playoff run from last year as a reason to go tonight because clearly last season's results are not a factor. So maybe 2 seasons ago, 3 seasons ago, as that is how a logical fan makes a decision to attend the game: They were 5-11 and 6-10 respectively.

Let's not forget that not long ago the Redskins boasted the largest stadium in the NFL, an always 100% full stadium and a 30+ year waiting list for season tickets. Since then they've ripped out like 14000 seats. are now getting like 90% attendance and are again cranking up talk of replacing FedEx field (which is newer than the Ed Jones Dome) with a smaller stadium back in Washington DC.

In addition to the Redskins, even the Steelers are having problems filling Heinz Field.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/ ... ttendance/

jstriebel wrote:(As an aside, the Bears takeover of the dome didn't happen this past week. Bears fans jump on these tickets as soon as they go on sale, and they buy them up on stub hub for weeks and weeks in advance. So the awesome drubbing we gave the Colts a couple weeks ago probably was too late to convince many people to hang on to their seats.)

I sold my tickets before the win over the Colts. I'll find out in a few weeks at the Saints game who I sold to as the people in front of us never sell their tickets and always give me trouble the next game when I sell mine.

^Another team with plenty of empty seats: Miami. And with their recent $1BB+ baseball stadium fiasco, it's doubtful they'll get a sweetheart football stadium deal in the foreseeable future.

On Bears Fans in STL: Last year, I was traveling back to STL from CHI via Amtrak. The train was full of Bears fans, stopping off in Dwight, Bloomington, and Springfield (the drunkest ended up here). All of IL claims the Bears as their state's team.

That there were plenty of Bears fans in the Jones Dome on Sunday is not that big a deal. They're nearby, and they're loyal. Hell, in 2006 I went to the Rams-Bears game at the Dome wearing orange & blue, have been cheering for them since Walter Payton was made a GI Joe action figure and STL was home to the Cardiac Cardinals. Yes, I do cheer adamantly for the Rams, have a Rams banner at home, all the gear, et.al., but that doesn't mean I don't still have my affinity for the boys in Soldier Field. And I know I'm not alone; how many of those Bears fans on Sunday live in STL?

Going forward, the Rams are doing remarkably well, considering both how young the team is and that they're doing this with the Franchise QB out for the season. Seriously, they're doing this well with Kellen Clemens? Wow, that's impressive. They keep this up, and they'll build up their team's following in STL & elsewhere.

I remain confident in my thoughts that the most likely candidate teams to move to LA are Oakland, San Diego, and Jacksonville, and that the most likely team to (theoretically) be the "London" team is Jacksonville.

Also, I do believe that a new stadium is possible in the near future, just maybe not along the riverfront, but still in the Downtown corridor, based on some of the local real estate & business execs' inter-relationships. But this is just my own conjecture, and I'm not about to just throw out theories at this time...

Go Rams!

All of IL claims the Bears as their state's team.

You may be surprised to know many in Illinois don't like anything Cook County related.

^Sure never affected mine, especially when Lovie Smith was named head coach, Mark Urlacher was squashing QBs, and Devin Hester started returning all those punts for TDs. Rex Grossman, that's another issue entirely...

Mark: I gained my Bears allegiance from my Grandparents when they lived in DuPage County.

I'm leading this thread OT... Go Rams! (and sometimes Bears)

^or trade down and get another three years with two first round draft picks. Not sure what position the rams need to fill that would require a first round first pick slot. Trading up didn't work so well for the redskins. Better to trade down and set up for years of top level talent.

I guess Toronto sports fans were underwhelmed by the Buffalo Bills/Falcons game there yesterday as the announced attendance was around 38,000.

We don't even know if the Rams care that much about a top tier stadium. As yet they haven't said what they want at all. They just stated what they felt would meet the terms of the lease. They wanted as much flexibility and leverage as possible which meant not being tied to a lease. But whats wrong with playing in a mid or lower tiered venue if the price is right. Admittedly Kronke may be more interested in a Superbowl and being able to impress his associates which may drive the building of a new stadium but its not necessarily the wisest choice in strictly cash in cash out terms. Owning your own stadium just sounds like a painfully expensive ego trip unless you plan to really be in the business of attracting other big events or get additional franchises to help offload the costs (MLS?) Of course these would be in the cards but none seem nearly as lucrative as owning an NFL franchise that leases the facility they play for very little money and bends the host city over a barrel to pay for it every time they want upgrades.

Bernie: How long can Rams fans wait?
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... e42ac.html

Key sections.

...since 2004, the Rams are 49-106-1 for a .317 winning percentage that ranks 31st among the 32 NFL franchises.

A team should always feel some embarrassment after getting thumped by a division rival for the second time this year. The Rams had a win and a tie against the 49ers last season but were outscored 58-24 in two losses to the Niners this year. Hey, but at least they weren’t embarrassed. Good grief.

It’s no surprise to see the Rams averaging 57,132 fans per home game, which ranks 31st. Their percentage of playing to stadium capacity (87.5) ranks 29th.

As I’ve written before, I don’t blame any fan for holding back. Why should they make a full investment — finances and emotions — when they can’t be certain that Kroenke plans to keep his team here?

The Rams aren’t going anywhere. The Los Angeles market is still is a mess, lacking a viable stadium plan that would meet the NFL standards. The NFL recently strengthened the grip on its control of the LA market.

According to the dependable Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal, the NFL sent a memo to all 32 teams in October, reminding the owners that the league owns the Los Angeles market, and only the league will decide when and if a team can relocate there.

In the memo, the NFL also advised 32 owners to resist the temptation to buy real estate in the LA area for the goal of building a stadium. The NFL insists on playing an active role in structuring a stadium deal in Los Angeles, and the agreement must be on the league’s terms.

(As I’ve written before, based on my conversations with multiple NFL owners, the league wants to keep LA open for an expansion team, perhaps even two — and collect enormous fees to be divided among the 32 owners.)

It is always nice to hear more evidence against the LA threat in Bernie's article. Despite everyone's good points, I still have a hard time defending fan behavior that waits until they are consistently competitive to show up. Obviously this is easily identifiable across sports and cities but I would think that as a self proclaimed "great sports city" we would hold ourselves to a higher standard. If Bernie is calling out the Rams to raise the bar on their performance, can't fans do the same? To me that behavior takes for granted the privilege of having an NFL franchise which is especially brash given our current unfortunate ownership/stadium/lease circumstances. We are not necessarily dealing with one or two good games in a row, we are dealing with the second season of a regime that we are lauding for their improvements, yet we won't invest with time and money. Why punish the current players and coaches for others' past mistakes?

I also wouldn't compare the Rams to the Blues and the Cardinals. I would critically compare the Rams as an organization to other small/midmarket NFL franchises that have recovered from a nadir like Cincinnati, Indianapolis, or KC and are once again in the playoff picture. But if we are going to open up the forum to Blues/Cards comparisons then let's do it: Maybe we should be careful with our accolades if we are patterns are just like everyone else ("Best Fans is baseball" or just "Fans of the best team"?). Also, Randy K called out Blues fans last evening for not showing up, citing a "civic duty" to attend. If we don't the Blues will either leave STL (his words not mine) or severely cut the $ investment in the team. I would argue we have a similar civic duty for the Rams (again, if we are going to compare across sports as Bernie opened up). Curiously, the Blues are fantastic and we still won't go. "Well, they have been good forever, so I'll wait until they get to the playoffs, or wait until they get to the second round, or......" Nice....we just became Braves' fans which we all love to rag on (again, let's watch our stone throwing if the precedent of mass fan behavior is our defense.

Finally, I certainly hope it is the case, but what is the proof of increased interest and "new" Rams fan cultivation if the attendance is not increasing? And what is the spark that is encouraging new fans? It couldn't be their level of performance because we've spent a lot of pages talking about how that performance is too poor to retain the fans, much less attract new ones. This would mean some sort of administrative/marketing force is uniquely attracting a new fan to a level of interest threshold classified as significant, but not enough to get them in a seat. How is that 1) possible 2) documentable 3) Does it matter if ownership can't track it? If the prohibitive factor is cost, then it won't matter when they are "good" enough to go see, the cost will still be there.