urbanSTL

But it works fine near the window in the walkway area of the dome, just not in the seats. Verizon works fine in the seats. And they should think about free WiFi if they want to pry people out of there Barcalounger.

Large crowd = overwhelmed infrastructure

Nice. Too bad the NFL has to drag some teams kicking and screaming. At the Super Bowl last year they brought in temporary equipment to handle 30,000 simultaneous users. And the new 49ers stadium will handle all 68,500 unlimited. I would think the Rams could cart in temporary access for 8 games per year. I see that MLB notes more tweets and photos going out than in.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:In thinking about the 2014 AFC/NFC west matchups, does anyone in KC gripe the way we do around here about "being in the wrong division"? It seems they are pretty much in the same boat geographically with their division foes.

There are two key differences, and they both tie back to history.

1. The Chiefs have been around forever (it seems). They have deep roots in KC and a huge and passionate fan base long since established. This means there are more of them willing to travel, and less of a dependence on traveling opponent fans to fill their stadium.

Conversely, the Rams haven't had the success or tradition or marketing to cement a fan base that large or passionate. That's less fans that want to travel across the country, and a greater need for opposing fans to help our fan base fill the seats.

2. The Kansas City Chiefs have been in a division with those teams for a very long time. Those are rivalries the fans really care about and have for years and years.

Conversely, the Rams arrived in St. Louis in 1995, and the only reason we have to be rivals with the 49ers is that the Rams fans in LA did. The only reason we have to be rivals with the Seahawks is that the NFL put them in the division in 2002. We of course do have a decent reason to have a rivalry with the Cardinals, but it still takes time to develop (and like the Seahawks, they were also just added in 2002).

Basically, the Chiefs have history with all three other teams in their division and it dates back a long time. The Rams have history with one team in their division, and those of us in St. Louis didn't care a lick about it until 1995.

http://www.stlmag.com/Blogs/SLM-Daily/J ... eam-to-LA/

Has anybody heard about Charlie Tuna being told by sources, that a Rams move is inevitable?This article mentions him saying that on the radio. This might be something that I'd like to see Bernie M. at the Post, comment on.

In case you are not aware of the Facebook movement 'Bring back the LA Rams', check it out. The group trashes Rams fans and the City of St. Louis, on a regular basis. I sure hope that Stan builds a new venue in St. Louis, so we can rub it in to these STL-haters.

Regarding the Rams upcoming draft, I think they will trade the pick for sure. I do not see them drafting Clowny. His stock has fallen, due to his off the field issues. I see them trying to gather as many picks as possible.

A post from Alvin Reid about a facebook group? Why would anyone get worked up over that? Seriously, when the NFL returns to LA it'll be an expansion team. They control the market.

here's an article worth reading:

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

An article in the Biz Journal, featuring Dave Peacock, states that he is negotiating with the Rams, for Nixon, to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Anyone know about this? This is news to me.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/prin ... maker.html

^ Wonder if someone with full access can give the lowdown on his comments. My take, Rams is telling the state what they want in regards to a new stadium and Nixon admin is respecting confidentially requests until a formal proposal is put forth by the Rams. Purely speculation on part as I'm assuming that you won't see anything until the start of 2015. I believe at that point you are year to year with EDJ unless mistaken and its 2016 as well as being after the current MO statehouse session but enough time to back room lobby before the 2015 MO statehouse session.

For a different thread altogether, but the article notes raising a $100 million for Arch grounds. Is this number all in including the federal TIGER grant or just donations separately?

Just curious if their is any more details or just fluff behind the lead in paragraph. Talk about some one who has insight on two big projects to the region, if a new a stadium is involved.

After watching some of the really really cold playoff games, maybe we should keep the dome as our backup stadium, even if we build a new open air stadium.

The wealthy class in the enclosed luxury sky boxes will be indoors either way, but they prefer outdoor stadiums because they can look out the miserable upper middle class folks freezing to death in their outdoor seats and feel even more superior.

^ I don't know about the dome backup idea. Kinda of enjoyed Saints beating Eagles in Philly and 49ers beating in Packers in Green Bay. The cold and elements added a twist of having to play the game that mother nature will let you play not what you want to play. Best part was my Eagles loving boss having to take crap from the 49ers crowd in my office.

dredger wrote:^ I don't know about the dome backup idea. Kinda of enjoyed Saints beating Eagles in Philly and 49ers beating in Packers in Green Bay. The cold and elements added a twist of having to play the game that mother nature will let you play not what you want to play. Best part was my Eagles loving boss having to take crap from the 49ers crowd in my office.

I agree it is entertaining to watch teams and fans suffering in the cold from my family room, but as a Rams season ticket holder, I was thinking of where I would prefer to watch a game when I am actually in the stands in January.

I would prefer to have a stadium with a retractable roof, like Seattle, Indy or Arizona. Using the Dome as a backup to an open-air venue is not feasible. If the Rams build a new venue in St. Louis, it needs to be done right and not done with a design that is obsolete before it is even built. That was the issue with the Dome. It was like building a cookie-cutter/multi-use facility, when the age of the Dome was already happening. We built the Dome and that model was already a thing of the past. I love the idea of having the Dome for conventions, major sporting events (Final 4, soccer, etc) and having a football/soccer specific venue. Actually, my number one preference, is to have 2 venues, one for NFL Football and one for MLS Soccer. I'd prefer the MLS venue be closer to a neighborhood,central City and the NFL venue on the riverfront. Time will tell. Maybe Mr. Peacock and Jay Nixon, can get this deal done, with their fellow Missourahian, Mr. Kroenke.

DogtownBnR wrote:I would prefer to have a stadium with a retractable roof, like Seattle, Indy or Arizona. Using the Dome as a backup to an open-air venue is not feasible. If the Rams build a new venue in St. Louis, it needs to be done right and not done with a design that is obsolete before it is even built. That was the issue with the Dome. It was like building a cookie-cutter/multi-use facility, when the age of the Dome was already happening. We built the Dome and that model was already a thing of the past. I love the idea of having the Dome for conventions, major sporting events (Final 4, soccer, etc) and having a football/soccer specific venue. Actually, my number one preference, is to have 2 venues, one for NFL Football and one for MLS Soccer. I'd prefer the MLS venue be closer to a neighborhood,central City and the NFL venue on the riverfront. Time will tell. Maybe Mr. Peacock and Jay Nixon, can get this deal done, with their fellow Missourahian, Mr. Kroenke.

Reports show that NFL teams with retractable roofs keep them closed for all but 2 or 3 games each year.
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/football ... sed/nWcNT/
I still contend that they could do wonders to dispel the cave-like experience in the EJ Dome by just changing the lighting dramatically. How much lighting would it take to get the level all the way up to outdoors on a sunny day -- with shadows and everything? $1 billion is a lot to pay just to see a patch of blue for 3 games X 3 hours/game = 9 hours per year. What would Busch charge to play 3 November games there every year?

DogtownBnR wrote:I would prefer to have a stadium with a retractable roof, like Seattle, Indy or Arizona.

Seattle's CenturyLink Field's roof does not move/is not retractable as it covers like 3/4 of the seats. I've stated elsewhere in this thread I love that design and would like to see it here.

^^Seattle's stadium looks great. The Rams have stated though that they want a venue that can cater to NCAA tournaments, Olympic trials, etc. You're going to need a controllable environment for that.

pat wrote:^^Seattle's stadium looks great. The Rams have stated though that they want a venue that can cater to NCAA tournaments, Olympic trials, etc. You're going to need a controllable environment for that.

I think they made those comments to support the illusion that their $700 million upgrade demand was not a fantasy to get them out of their 30-year lease commitment, but rather a civic gesture. After they won, I presumed they might come back and work with the CVC to share implementation of, say, 10% of the best ideas for the enjoyment of their fans, if they planned to hang around. After all, CVC showed that they do have a bunch of money ($50 million?) for some upgrades.

But not a peep. I guess this is intended as punishment for us fans in the stands -- you buy it all, or you get nothing at all. Or they are thinking -- why suggest upgrades to a facility they only plan to use for one more season. Or -- best scenario -- secret talks are underway and any day now they will announce plans for a new stadium in the region.

If the Rams leave town, could we convince another team (Green Bay or KC) to play a few December games in the dome? We'll agree to rename it Lambeau South.