St. Louis Rams

DannyJ · PostDec 16, 2013#14012013-12-16T00:35+00:00

rawest1 wrote:More than anything, I just like for there to be stuff to do in St. Louis, and to feel like I live in a city that exists on the national stage.

This conversation has been done-to-death by now, but we don't have mountains/ocean/climate that places like Los Angeles, Portland and Austin do to attract attention, advertise and grow. Don't know about you guys but in my experience it seems 90% of the time hearing about places like like Cleveland, Indianapolis or Pittsburgh it's in the context of their sports teams and/or venues. Without those teams those places might as well not even exist on any national stage.

Our region told an NFL franchise to go F itself once before already. How many years (months? days? seconds?) after that did it take for Greater St. Louis to pine for representation in the NFL again? I hope we don't keep repeating these mistakes.

There is no doubt that having major sports teams helps to give a city national exposure. But does having three professional sports teams do that much more for a city than having two pro teams? Maybe even more specifically, does having an NFL team do that much more for a city's national exposure than if it only had two pro sports teams in less popular sports than the NFL?

If St. Louis were to lose the Rams, then we'd be the only top 20 U.S. metro without an NFL team other than LA. However, just down the list would be Charlotte, Portland, San Antonio, Orlando, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Columbus, Austin, and Milwaukee in the top 40. Would those be bad peer cities to be among in terms of the national exposure they have? I'm not making a judgment. I'm really not sure and I'm asking your opinion.

It seems to me that Charlotte, Portland, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Austin generate a good amount of national publicity for things other than sports teams. If all we're talking about is generating national exposure, would it be better for the St. Louis region to invest in other strategies to increase our relevance in the national conversation instead of putting tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars towards retaining an NFL team? It's been well-discussed that simply having an NFL team does little to build the vibrancy of downtown or the economy of the region other than by generating national exposure. Are there better ways we could invest as a region to increase our national presence?

Taking this in an entirely different direction, I'd like to say that I enjoy having the Cardinals, Rams, and Blues in St. Louis. But it shouldn't go unnoticed that in the last week there have been two articles in the paper discussing the Rams and Blues difficulties with attendance. As one of the articles mentions, attendance problems aren't as big of an issue for the Rams since they generate much more money from TV deals, but the Blues are struggling financially because ticket sales make up about 50% of their potential revenue stream. Now, Rams games and Blues games are not perfect substitutes for one another and they are very rarely in direct head-to-head competition for TV viewers or ticket sales having games on the same day and time, but it is not a stretch to say that on some level as pro sports teams in the same region during the same season, they are in competition for St. Louisans entertainment dollars. Also, as pro sports teams in the same region, there is probably considerable overlap in their fan bases. Speculatively, you could predict that sports fans in St. Louis make decisions about which local franchise they will support more financially, based on their preference for the team or game.

I'm going down a wormhole here, but say the Rams left the St. Louis region. Many Rams fans are also Blues fans, and if the Rams left town, their fans would have more of their entertainment money to spend on other local entertainment options. Some of them would choose to continue supporting local sports because that's what they enjoy. Speculatively, if 10% of the people who attend Rams home games decided to spend more of their entertainment dollars on attending Blues games once the Rams had left, that'd make about an additional 45,000 attendants at Blues games a year. If you were to add those fans to the Blues average attendance figures for the year, that'd put them in the top 10 in attendance in the league rather than at 19 or 20 where they currently are.

I know that's all speculation, but it's not illogical, and it all kind of goes back to the original question. Does having three pro sports teams (two of which are struggling financially) do that much more for St. Louis' ability to generate national exposure than having two financially successful sports teams? And would the regional investment that would be required to hold onto that third sports team be justified?

Mark Groth · PostDec 16, 2013#14022013-12-16T01:37+00:00

I just paid for my first Rams game ever today. What a great game the team played and the place was packed with Saints fans. For what it's worth, I met up with my group who were tailgating in the parking lot directly north of the dome, south of the Vess bottle, at 2:00. The game was at 3:25, there were VERY few people in this lot and I parked for free on the street and walked 5 minutes to meet them. We clearly don't need more surface lots since there were tons of $20 spaces to be had right by the dome for tailgating. I don't really buy the cold/snow excuse either...football is a winter game. It just doesn't seem necessary to subsidize a new stadium/parking lot for a team that plays 8 regular season games a year. Good win for the Rams.

rawest1 · PostDec 16, 2013#14032013-12-16T01:54+00:00

jstriebel wrote:I see people misunderstanding each other and I hate that, haha.

The question was is there a chance the Rams will leave the city still. Whether the poster meant city limits or the greater STL region, I'm not sure, but the response given was under the assumption the question was about the Rams leaving the STL city limits.

And the response was accurate. If the Rams go outside the city, it's still most likely they stay in the greater STL region and play in the county.

I think most likely, though, is that the Rams stay in the dome a while longer and probably get a new stadium somewhere not far from the current one eventually.

Yeah, I agree with all of this.

DannyJ wrote: There is no doubt that having major sports teams helps to give a city national exposure. But does having three professional sports teams do that much more for a city than having two pro teams? Maybe even more specifically, does having an NFL team do that much more for a city's national exposure than if it only had two pro sports teams in less popular sports than the NFL?

If St. Louis were to lose the Rams, then we'd be the only top 20 U.S. metro without an NFL team other than LA. However, just down the list would be Charlotte, Portland, San Antonio, Orlando, Sacramento, Las Vegas, Columbus, Austin, and Milwaukee in the top 40. Would those be bad peer cities to be among in terms of the national exposure they have? I'm not making a judgment. I'm really not sure and I'm asking your opinion.

It seems to me that Charlotte, Portland, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Austin generate a good amount of national publicity for things other than sports teams.

Well, first of all, I don't know why you're listing Charlotte among those cities because they have an NFL team (Panthers). Milwaukee doesn't have one per se, but they're the largest bastion of Packers fans, and very strongly identify with that franchise... distance-wise, it's like St. Louis and Columbia/Mizzou.

The rest of the cities you listed have those things I specifically listed that St. Louis does not have: Mountains, oceans, and/or climate that would entice people to visit and/or move businesses and homes there, except Columbus.

And, yes, I would say being one of Columbus's "peer cities" would mean St. Louis has fallen significantly.

DannyJ wrote: If all we're talking about is generating national exposure, would it be better for the St. Louis region to invest in other strategies to increase our relevance in the national conversation instead of putting tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars towards retaining an NFL team? It's been well-discussed that simply having an NFL team does little to build the vibrancy of downtown or the economy of the region other than by generating national exposure. Are there better ways we could invest as a region to increase our national presence?

The only other way I think spending hundreds of millions of dollars might improve our standing on the national stage is expanding our public transit meaningfully (a novelty streetcar that runs from Blueberry Hill to the Missouri History Museum doesn't count as "meaningfully," either). That could make St. Louis more fun to live in because of how connected all our entertainment districts could then be, and possibly allow for those districts to grow and for new ones to sprout up.

But I don't think it's an "either/or" proposition. It's not like, once we're done paying off the current Dome in 2023 we can't put that entertainment tax money towards a new stadium, while also levying something else to expand transit. I don't understand why we can't do both. Right now, it doesn't seem like we're working toward doing either.

DannyJ wrote:Taking this in an entirely different direction, I'd like to say that I enjoy having the Cardinals, Rams, and Blues in St. Louis. But it shouldn't go unnoticed that in the last week there have been two articles in the paper discussing the Rams and Blues difficulties with attendance. As one of the articles mentions, attendance problems aren't as big of an issue for the Rams since they generate much more money from TV deals, but the Blues are struggling financially because ticket sales make up about 50% of their potential revenue stream. Now, Rams games and Blues games are not perfect substitutes for one another and they are very rarely in direct head-to-head competition for TV viewers or ticket sales having games on the same day and time, but it is not a stretch to say that on some level as pro sports teams in the same region during the same season, they are in competition for St. Louisans entertainment dollars. Also, as pro sports teams in the same region, there is probably considerable overlap in their fan bases. Speculatively, you could predict that sports fans in St. Louis make decisions about which local franchise they will support more financially, based on their preference for the team or game.

I'm going down a wormhole here, but say the Rams left the St. Louis region. Many Rams fans are also Blues fans, and if the Rams left town, their fans would have more of their entertainment money to spend on other local entertainment options. Some of them would choose to continue supporting local sports because that's what they enjoy. Speculatively, if 10% of the people who attend Rams home games decided to spend more of their entertainment dollars on attending Blues games once the Rams had left, that'd make about an additional 45,000 attendants at Blues games a year. If you were to add those fans to the Blues average attendance figures for the year, that'd put them in the top 10 in attendance in the league rather than at 19 or 20 where they currently are.

I disagree. The reasons the teams are experiencing attendance issues are complex, and there isn't a lot of overlap (really, the only overlapping factor I can think of is the recession). The problem with hockey is it's just not a very popular sport, period. It's played 4th fiddle to the other three major American pro-sports leagues for a long time, now. It's having extreme financial difficulty across the board (as evidenced by the two season-crippling lockouts in a span of just one decade).

To say that the Rams leaving would boost the Blues in any meaningful way is definitely speculation, and I think it's pretty far off-base. In short, hardcore hockey fans are very much their own sort, as are hardcore football fans. "Casual" sports fans, on the other hand, would more readily flock to a winning NFL franchise because the NFL is king among American pro sports. It's the most popular, and it's not even close.

Case-in-point A: "Casual" sports fans are clearly not flocking readily to a winning NHL franchise here in St. Louis, because hockey just isn't as popular. It doesn't have the "casual appeal" that NFL football does.

Case-in-point B: St. Louis has never been a "football town" per se. And yet, when the Rams were dominant from 1999-2003, Rams tickets were the hottest tickets in town.

DannyJ wrote:I know that's all speculation, but it's not illogical, and it all kind of goes back to the original question. Does having three pro sports teams (two of which are struggling financially) do that much more for St. Louis' ability to generate national exposure than having two financially successful sports teams? And would the regional investment that would be required to hold onto that third sports team be justified?

Again, yes, I think it does. Like I said, I don't know what your all's experience is, but in mine, most of those cities like Indy, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. are only experienced by me through their sports teams, or watching events like major shows or sports tournaments, or reading about/going to conventions in first-tier venues in those cities. THOSE are the cities with whom we should be competing (and, in my opinion, we're better than pretty much all of them, though we obviously have much room for further improvement). Without those venues/teams, then those places might as well not exist on any sort of "national stage" for me, and I'm willing to bet most people.

Also another dimension to that entire discussion: when we're talking "new venue," we're not just talking about one for the Rams, to be used ten days per year (more once we start making the playoffs again). This is more than just increasing our exposure via an NFL franchise, although that's my chief interest. We're talking about one that could also potentially host a Major League Soccer franchise, Super Bowls, NCAA Final Fours, huge festivals/concerts, Olympic-qualifier events, and bigger more major conventions that currently pass us up because our facilities are not currently able to compete with other cities' facilities across the nation.

Gotta think big.

blzhrpmd2 · PostDec 16, 2013#14042013-12-16T14:42+00:00

^Excellent response.

I was in town over the weekend and at the game yesterday and I must say that it was awesome. There were a lot of Saints fans, but there also seemed to be a good rep from Rams fans who were having a blast afterwards which was so fun to see in person for the first time this season. There were plenty of Saints fans in our section who obviously had little to enjoy. Luckily the only friction that developed was between 2 Rams fans arguing about Bradford's future.

Regarding the team, here are some first hand rambling observations from a non expert. My concern regarding Brian Quick continues to grow. The same may be said for Jared Cook. Both of these guys look like they are going through the motions on most of their routes. Cook rarely blocks with an intensity that seems appropriate. On multiple completions to other receivers his body language suggested a sulking mentality which was interesting. Quick just looks like a complete waste of tools as he is impressive physically, but just kind of runs around. Stedman Bailey on the other hand really runs hard even when not targeted and looks to be developing into a reliable offensive contributor. The O line was very solid and Jake Long is a massive, monster of a human. I don't fully get the offense's second down playing calling. Given the lead, favoring the run made perfect sense, but I don't understand running basically the same version of a run into the back of the o-line 2 plays in a row, then backing into an obvious third down pass. I would have liked to see Tavon in person. Stacy has a great blend of features and is fun to watch. The defensive scheme continues to inexplicably allow receivers to literally be wide open 10-15 yards to the field. It was nice to see Janoris make a few man to man stops in key plays, 2 of which were back to back in the 4th quarter. Brockers is a beast in there and Robert Quinn is just ridiculous. His second nature ability to make the big defensive play in key situations highlights our lack of that player on offense especially at the receiver position. Hopefully guys like Austin and Bailey will develop into those guys in the next 2-3 years as Quinn has.

All in all a great experience and it was fun to see a lot of smiling faces roaming around the Dome and the streets of downtown. Now hopefully some consistency will accompanying a prideful/hopeful exit from 2013 over the next few weeks.

gary kreie · PostDec 16, 2013#14052013-12-16T21:27+00:00

I was at the game too and was glad we didn't need to hear the New Orleans Who-Dat chant. (Whodat, Whodat, Whodat say de gonna beat dem Saints). I remember hearing that as we walked out a few years ago after a Rams loss to them. But I love having those fun away fans in attendance.

Speaking of attendance, I was kind of shocked at seeing the empty stands in Pittsburgh for the Steeler win over the Bengals. Here is a link to an article about the game, and it also noted the poor attendance.

http://triblive.com/sports/steelers/525 ... z2nftIDmg1

"At the same time, the Steelers were wondering where their fans were.
There were nearly 20,000 no-shows — the crowd of 45,873 easily was the smallest since Heinz Field opened in 2001 — and they missed the kind of all-around performance the Steelers rarely have produced while going 14-16 the past two seasons."

So the Steelers attendance may have been worse than the Rams attendance yesterday.

pat · PostDec 16, 2013#14062013-12-16T21:52+00:00

^But I'm sure it was just a smidge colder too. Just think how few people would have showed up for the Rams if it was outside and single digits.

DannyJ · PostDec 17, 2013#14072013-12-17T18:54+00:00

I’ll just have to disagree with you rawest1. And if and when it comes to a public vote, I hope the region turns the Rams’ request for public funding down. I like the Rams. In full disclosure, I’m more of a Cardinals fan, but I follow the Rams. I get excited when they win and I’m disappointed when they lose. I think they’re good for the region. But I don’t think they do very much at all for the region’s economy. Nor do I think that publically funding a new arena for the secondary purpose of improving our ability to attract more conventions would be cost effective.

Cities do gain from having their names out in the public attached to professional sports teams. However- and I’m not saying this as a Cardinals fan but as a St. Louisan- the Cardinals alone are able to and do carry the banner of civic PR through sports for St. Louis. Pull up Google Images and search “STL”. It’s almost like New York and the Yankees. As the Yankees carry the New York sports image, the Cardinals carry St. Louis’ national sports image. Sure the Giants, Knicks, and Rangers help, but they could disappear and NY would still be seen as a major sports city because of the Yanks. Having the Rams on hand to represent St. Louis is good for the region and provides marginal value, but it’s not worth hundreds of millions of public dollars on top of our existing debt obligations from the last football arena deal. If the Rams left town, I don’t think we’d skip a beat in terms of our place in the national consciousness. That isn’t the case for all cities if they lost an NFL franchise, but because of the Cardinals’ iconic national status with this city, I don’t believe losing the Rams would bring down St. Louis’ national standing much at all.

If an NFL team isn’t generating surplus national publicity for a city, there just isn’t much that it adds to a regional economy. With that in mind, I think the regional economic opportunity cost of contributing hundreds of millions of dollars of local and state funding absolutely have to be the primary factor in this decision. Since we are and will be for the foreseeable future a low growth region with already high local sales taxes and considerable public debt in a low growth, low tax, politically divided state, it’s a fact that we are very limited in the ways we can invest public dollars to improve the region. I can think of a dozen ways to invest $200 million- a very conservative estimate of how much the city, county, and state might be asked to contribute to a new stadium- that would provide greater economic return than a stadium. Strengthening UMSL’s research capacity, making TRex flush with startup capital, installing fiber optic cable down the central corridor, expanding Medicaid, supporting K-12 education, financing tax credits for the air cargo hub, rebuilding MSD sewer systems, addressing the deplorable condition of city thoroughfares, expanding Metro and its service frequency, increasing eligibility for historic tax credit re-imbursement, investing in workforce development, overhauling our supply chain and logistics transportation infrastructure etc. would each on their own do much more for the regional economy at much lower costs than a new football stadium/convention center. In terms of generating national publicity alone, building UMSL into a national research university in St. Louis, starting an entrepreneurial tech boom, or launching the air cargo hub would do more for building the region’s national presence than a football team. But the ability of the region and state to get even one of these things accomplished would be that much more difficult and unlikely if we put hundreds of millions of our very limited resources towards giving the Rams a handout. Politically alone, there is absolutely no way the state is going to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a new football stadium in St. Louis and then also put up hundreds of millions of dollars for MetroLink expansion.

Also, using or adding onto the entertainment tax from ticket sales to partially pay for the stadium is still crowding out spending on other potentially more productive uses of local income to give to sports owners who provide little to no economic benefit to the region. And the 5% entertainment tax on ticket sales doesn’t come close to paying for a new stadium, or even the existing one. On a banner year, the city collects $3 million a year from the Rams from this tax. Meanwhile, all of the receipts from the city’s 1% restaurant tax and 3.5% hotel tax also currently go to pay the city’s annual $12 million debt service on the existing stadium. Think about that. The City’s restaurants and hotels are already subsidizing the existing football stadium. And that only covers ¼th of the annual debt service obligations on the current dome. The opportunity cost of publically funding a stadium is pretty steep.

And spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the attempt of attracting more major conventions and events would be a pretty poor economic development strategy for a city like St. Louis which already has its fair share of venues. Cities did that in the 80s and 90s. Almost all of them failed.

I hope the Rams stay. I just don’t think there is reason for us to spend significant state and regional dollars to keep them here.

jstriebel · PostDec 17, 2013#14082013-12-17T19:25+00:00

Count me as opining with rawest on this one.

I think I agree with you, Dannyj, that the Rams currently don't do anything for St. Louis that the Cardinals can't cover. But when the Rams were historically good from 1999-2001... St. Louis was THE sports city. We were on everyone's mind.

When the Rams stink, as they typically have, we're just a Cardinals city with a baseball and a hockey team (love the Blues, but we're a long way from hockey making a major impact on the national conscious).

But if the Rams are successfully in establishing themselves as a long-term contender... well then I think they'd do more for the region's interest than you're allowing.

And I don't know how much of that is economic. I really don't. I know there's not a lot of statistical support for subsidizing sport franchises. But I think there's something to be said for the intangible and the immeasurable.

Can you put a price on civic pride? I think we have a lot of civic pride in St. Louis that people are afraid to express, but sports brings it out in this city. And if the Rams can get back to winning, that's a big time positive vibe that this city often only expresses during baseball season.

You could make the most perfect numbers oriented case about how it still doesn't make financial sense, and I would still vote to subsidize to a reasonable extent because of the feelings that go beyond numbers.

DannyJ · PostDec 17, 2013#14092013-12-17T20:30+00:00

jstriebel wrote:You could make the most perfect numbers oriented case about how it still doesn't make financial sense, and I would still vote to subsidize to a reasonable extent because of the feelings that go beyond numbers.

There is room for a reasonable subsidy. I think the CVC's proposal last year to provide about $60 million to be matched by the Rams would be a reasonable subsidy if it were to be shared among the state and region (including St. Charles). It's pretty clear though that it was mostly a negotiations exercise, and that the actual proposed subsidy will be many multiples of that figure for a new stadium.

Bonds for $60 million, which could be affordably paid off over ten years, might come to a total cost of $75 million. There is much less opportunity cost there than having to pay off bonds for the $350 million that the Rams requested, which could come out to be around $700 million over 30 years.

jstriebel · PostDec 17, 2013#14102013-12-17T22:44+00:00

Where did you see the Rams requesting $350 million?

It's not that I think that number is too high, it's just that I don't think the Rams have requested anything so far. They submitted a proposal for what they believed met the lease, and the CVC estimated that proposal at $700+ million. While the CVC suggested their financial commitment to the renovations should be a little south of 50%, the Rams made no such mention of how their proposed renovations would be funded.

But now that clause in the lease is gone. Nobody is responsible for making anything first tier. The Rams have the option to go year-to-year (or not), and there can be negotiations beyond that clause.

A new stadium is going to cost in the range of $750 million to $1 billion most likely. I continue to hold the belief that the Rams will ultimately cover 1/3 of it straight up, another 1/3 of it via the NFL G4 stadium loan fund, and the remaining 1/3 will fall to taxpayers.

So we'd be looking in the range of around $250-$333 million from the taxpayers. So like I said, I don't take issue with what you suggest the taxpayers would be asked to foot, I'm just curious where you got the idea that the Rams have asked for that to this point.

For what it's worth, I believe that $250-$333 is a pretty reasonable amount for a new stadium that would secure the long-term future of our NFL team, and likely land us marquee events like the Final Four and Super Bowl, as well as lesser but still impactful events.

DannyJ · PostDec 17, 2013#14112013-12-17T23:29+00:00

jstriebel wrote:Where did you see the Rams requesting $350 million?

It's not that I think that number is too high, it's just that I don't think the Rams have requested anything so far. They submitted a proposal for what they believed met the lease, and the CVC estimated that proposal at $700+ million. While the CVC suggested their financial commitment to the renovations should be a little south of 50%, the Rams made no such mention of how their proposed renovations would be funded.

But now that clause in the lease is gone. Nobody is responsible for making anything first tier. The Rams have the option to go year-to-year (or not), and there can be negotiations beyond that clause.

A new stadium is going to cost in the range of $750 million to $1 billion most likely. I continue to hold the belief that the Rams will ultimately cover 1/3 of it straight up, another 1/3 of it via the NFL G4 stadium loan fund, and the remaining 1/3 will fall to taxpayers.

So we'd be looking in the range of around $250-$333 million from the taxpayers. So like I said, I don't take issue with what you suggest the taxpayers would be asked to foot, I'm just curious where you got the idea that the Rams have asked for that to this point.

For what it's worth, I believe that $250-$333 is a pretty reasonable amount for a new stadium that would secure the long-term future of our NFL team, and likely land us marquee events like the Final Four and Super Bowl, as well as lesser but still impactful events.

Oops, you're right. I just assumed that since the CVC proposal offered to cover half the costs of the dome renovation, that the Rams' proposal included that too.

gary kreie · PostDec 18, 2013#14122013-12-18T03:11+00:00

pat wrote:^But I'm sure it was just a smidge colder too. Just think how few people would have showed up for the Rams if it was outside and single digits.

So there is no difference between Rams fans and Steeler fans, you are saying. Steelers fans got spoiled just like Rams fans and won't show up if the team is, in their case, average and the stadium environment is subpar. The owners just want fans in the stands, and whether it is the crummy open air stadium that keeps fans away in cold weather, or a crummy team for 10 years, the result is the same -- missing fans.

That being said, I am still surprised that Steeler fans are with their team all the way -- except when the weather is cold. Then they become fair weather fans and say -- you guys go out and suffer in the cold and wind, and we'll support you all the way from our family rooms. By the way, I heard a Packers fan on the radio today who was in attendance at the Packers and Cowboys game in Dallas this week. He said at least half of the upper deck in Dallas was full of Packer fans.

So St. Louis is not so different from the rest of the league after all. Now if we could just get a few upgrades to the Stadium that both the CVC and Rams agreed in their upgrade proposals were necessary for a minimally acceptable game day experience.

PostDec 18, 2013#14132013-12-18T03:25+00:00

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

St. Louis is just slightly behind Pittsburgh in home attendance stats this year and both teams are 6-8:

2013 Attendance Home
RANK TEAM TOTAL AVG PCT
30 Pittsburgh 402,128 57,446 88.4
31 St. Louis 401,234 57,319 87.7
32 Oakland 352,056 50,293 79.8

gone corporate · PostDec 18, 2013#14142013-12-18T20:03+00:00

jstriebel wrote:A new stadium is going to cost in the range of $750 million to $1 billion most likely. I continue to hold the belief that the Rams will ultimately cover 1/3 of it straight up, another 1/3 of it via the NFL G4 stadium loan fund, and the remaining 1/3 will fall to taxpayers.

Add-in the variable of STL possibly securing a MLS expansion team.

Should this happen, that team would likely be a financial contributor to a new stadium, as any new stadium to be built in STL in the near future is likely to serve double duty housing Football and Soccer (the Jones Dome can barely fit a pitch today, and Busch can’t host beyond exhibitions). Even if the same ownership group (Silent Stan & Co.) has interests in both the Rams and some nebulous expansion STL MLS team, they’d likely have to combine to pay more than 1/3 of any new stadium costs.

MLS remains just that, a variable. Still, it’s a viable one. And, if MLS does come to STL, they’ll want their team to play in the urban environment; very much, City over County.

goat314 · PostDec 19, 2013#14152013-12-19T00:40+00:00

Paul McKee said he is interested in building a new NFL or MLS stadium (or both) within the Northside footprint, two possible locations are the 22nd st interchange, the foot of the new Mississippi River Bridge, or just north of the EJD (anybody remember that land deal north of the stadium a couple years back?).

dredger · PostDec 19, 2013#14162013-12-19T04:14+00:00

^ I think we can agree on a few things

1) At some point Rams/Stan K is going to want his new stadium to stay in St Louis
2) I think the 1/3 analogy is right on, it is going to paid 1/3 by Stan K/Rams, 1/3 by NFL and 1/3 by local dollars
3) McKee has a lot of space and who as a developer wouldn't want a plus 750 dollar investment paid by others land on his property
4) MLS added to the mix of a new Rams stadiums helps the economics of that stadium any way you look at it.

Ideally I would love to see a new specific soccer stadium that not only caters to MLS but also allows Wash U and/or SLU to play there in or around West Downtown/Union Station is a great location, with great transit access (think students) and blocks away from Amtrak (think KC and Chicago fans for local rivalries) and central location surrounded by existing hotels/bars/eateries that can easily take on the the extra business.

The wildcard of course is local dollars which gets tougher with two separate stadiums let alone the region willing to support two new stadiums downtown.

roger wyoming II · PostDec 19, 2013#14172013-12-19T16:16+00:00

$250 - $300 million in taxpayer support would be a very tough sell.... I suppose we could soak visitors for car rental and bed tax, but that is a lot of dough. My bet is it would fail.

pat · PostDec 19, 2013#14182013-12-19T16:43+00:00

^Really? I'm not so sure. If the NFL and the owner are throwing in money and a new MLS team is also part of the mix, I think that changes things.

jstriebel · PostDec 19, 2013#14192013-12-19T17:27+00:00

I think it would pass, but I'm also better there will be channels through which most of the public money isn't brought to a vote. Right or wrong.

roger wyoming II · PostDec 19, 2013#14202013-12-19T17:41+00:00

pat wrote:^Really? I'm not so sure. If the NFL and the owner are throwing in money and a new MLS team is also part of the mix, I think that changes things.

NFL and Kroenke paying for most will help, but the political landscape has changed dramatically for funding of such magnitude. Unlike for the current dome, the state is unlikely to contribute anything of significance to the project.... last time they did 50%. Also, I think there will be significant opposition in the County if the stadium remains downtown. County voters have repeatedly supported projects where they see a direct benefit (like the Arch/GRG/County parks tax and Metrolink), but there already is growing frustration with county support for "city" projects. If the site is out in the county, there would be more support there but the interesting question would be whether city voters support it. Anyway, the City and County continue to pay dearly for the existing dome and will do so for another 8 years or so; paying full freight (i.e. no state contribution) for a new stadium would be a significant financial obligation for city/county taxpayers so it would be no easy task.

blzhrpmd2 · PostDec 20, 2013#14212013-12-20T00:54+00:00

rawest1 · PostDec 20, 2013#14222013-12-20T17:54+00:00

jstriebel wrote:I think it would pass, but I'm also better there will be channels through which most of the public money isn't brought to a vote. Right or wrong.

I do not think it would pass a public vote. However, I agree that there are channels through which most of the public money will likely not be brought to such a vote, like what happened in Minnesota last year, and what happened in Georgia this year. I especially think this because I imagine many local civic leaders, as well as key politicians on both sides of the aisle of the Missouri state legislature, are on Stan Kroenke's payroll.

I was only a few years old when the legislation was passed to fund the construction of the Edward Jones Dome; was that funding put to a public vote?

mjbais1489 · PostDec 20, 2013#14232013-12-20T19:20+00:00

dredger wrote:^ I think we can agree on a few things

1) At some point Rams/Stan K is going to want his new stadium to stay in St Louis
2) I think the 1/3 analogy is right on, it is going to paid 1/3 by Stan K/Rams, 1/3 by NFL and 1/3 by local dollars
3) McKee has a lot of space and who as a developer wouldn't want a plus 750 dollar investment paid by others land on his property
4) MLS added to the mix of a new Rams stadiums helps the economics of that stadium any way you look at it.

Ideally I would love to see a new specific soccer stadium that not only caters to MLS but also allows Wash U and/or SLU to play there in or around West Downtown/Union Station is a great location, with great transit access (think students) and blocks away from Amtrak (think KC and Chicago fans for local rivalries) and central location surrounded by existing hotels/bars/eateries that can easily take on the the extra business.

The wildcard of course is local dollars which gets tougher with two separate stadiums let alone the region willing to support two new stadiums downtown.

I don't think well see a Soccer Specific Stadium just because I think Stan knows enough to make his field at least usable incase a soccer teams comes here. (permanently or for an exhibition). Ala seattle's stadium.

Also I don't see SLU soccer moving off-campus. They already have one of the nicest fields in NCAA soccer. I could see them moving to a hypothetical downtown stadium for a match against Indiana or Virginia or something. They'd have to be a lot better then they have been for the past couple years with a bigger following though.

I know nothing of Wash U soccer.

gone corporate · PostDec 23, 2013#14242013-12-23T19:06+00:00

goat314 wrote:Paul McKee said he is interested in building a new NFL or MLS stadium (or both) within the Northside footprint, two possible locations are the 22nd st interchange, the foot of the new Mississippi River Bridge, or just north of the EJD (anybody remember that land deal north of the stadium a couple years back?).

Agree 100%, and have for some time.

This is not with any advanced knowledge... If I had to give my guess where a new Rams stadium would go, I'd say it would be on the 22nd Street Parkway.

Reasoning:
It's on McKee's NorthSide land. McKee's properties have already been considered viable when word was to have it go on land in what used to be called the "Bottle District", which he now owns. Paul sells this land to Stan and is able to fund his further developments up north. NFL fuels NorthSide.
The site has great access both to highways and a MetroLink stop, both with plans to be updated soon.
It has parking at Union Station that sits empty all the time, and Stan wants some control over parking.
Union Station is home to retail opportunities in which Stan wants to have interests: restaurants, Rams gear, etc.
There's enough land between 20th Street and Harry's Bar, 64/40 and Market, to build it.
It'll provide solid views of Downtown from the stadium.
It'll be proximate to the hotels in Downtown, which Stan needs if STL is to ever be a candidate city for a Super Bowl (his big dream). These clustered hotels will keep a new stadium in the City and not places like Fenton or Maryland Heights.
It'll support the development of a new McKee Tower at the terminus of the Gateway Mall (part of his grand vision).
It'll support LHM's revitalization of Union Station and in fact lead to it becoming a hub for football-related events, basically an already-built entertainment venue to harness for football taking place next door to it.
If this theoretical stadium could be combined with MLS, then we've got a real winner here that's likely to pass. And, from the MLS Stadium mock-up drawings on the adjacent land posted by nextSTL from over a year ago, we can see both that there is interest in this site for a pro sports arena, and that a football stadium can likely fit this parcel.
Union Station would then cash in for fans of both the NFL and MLS, providing patrons year-round.
With the interrelationships between Stan Kroenke, Paul McKee, and LHM's Bob O'Loughlin (who just retired as Chair of the CVC), it's reasonable to see this as very viable.
Buy the building where Maggie O'Brien's is. It's owned by the Pipefitters Union (their union hall is upstairs); I'm sure they'd sell for a good profit going in cash to their pensions. Those other buildings next door are the Police retirement fund and some little company, all of which could go into the new McKee Tower at the terminus for cheap.
Downtown West is just begging for an impetus to new development, which this can provide.

I'm not sure how much it would cost to buy out the Drury Hotel that's there, but I bet that'd be the only big hold-up, other than satisfying the debt still outstanding for the Edward Jones Dome.

Again, these are just thoughts, no insider info, based upon the opportunities present.

gary kreie · PostDec 31, 2013#14252013-12-31T15:14+00:00

Ok, the folks stranded on the boat stuck in the ice at Antarctica have phone and WiFi and are uploading to YouTube etc.

But AT&T is incapable of providing service to my AT&T plan phones in the dome unless I leave the seating area and stand near a window somewhere. And forget any kind of WIFi in the dome. My wife's Verizon phone works fine in the dome.

My AT&T plan phone works fine In front of my big screen TV for football.

St. Louis Rams

Choose Display Mode