I mean, Kroenke's not on the stadium committee. Thus it's inaccurate to say he is.
And stating it as a fact that Kroenke is bringing an MLS team to LA as a fact is also inaccurate. It's a reported possibility, but not by any legitimate sources. You give plenty of reasons why he COULD do it, but there's no legitimate indication to this point that he's doing so. I'm not the only one who believes that rumor isn't worth putting stock in.
Ok, I will give you the "IS" vs. "was". He WAS on the stadium Commission, is a fact. it is speculation, but I think it is bad that he still is not on the committee. If anyone knows why he is not, please let us know. Does this mean, he is no longer an objective member. Is this because he rubbed somebody the wrong way, with his perceived moves, in the direction of relocation.
Regardless of those items you pointed out, I think there is enough to believe a move is VERY possible. I am not at all, saying it is a done deal. I do think the odds are slowly going against us here in STL.
DogtownBnR wrote:Ok, I will give you the "IS" vs. "was". He WAS on the stadium Commission, is a fact. it is speculation, but I think it is bad that he still is not on the committee. If anyone knows why he is not, please let us know. Does this mean, he is no longer an objective member. Is this because he rubbed somebody the wrong way, with his perceived moves, in the direction of relocation.
Regardless of those items you pointed out, I think there is enough to believe a move is VERY possible. I am not at all, saying it is a done deal. I do think the odds are slowly going against us here in STL.
Which rumor isn't worth putting stock in?
The Kroenke LA MLS team is the rumor I was referring too. It's entirely plausible, but I don't currently believe there's anything to it. If a legitimate news source reports (as their own story) that there is something to it, I'll change my mind. As of now, I think it's a non-story.
Aside from that, yes, absolutely a Rams move to LA is very possible. Of course it is.
But it's not remotely imminent, and there's no need to panic at this point. If Kroenke doesn't return the Governor's calls, he can't move per NFL policy. He has to try to get a deal done. And as alluded to above, St. Louis already has about half the money it would need to do so. The league won't want to walk away from that.
^ It is interesting following recent real estate developments in San Fran Bay and how is it relates or playing out with the Oakland Pro teams including the Raiders,
The Warriors delayed their new stadium by at least year as SF residents will get to vote on their proposed bay front stadium as it exceeds the local zoning height by a good 100' feet. My employer would love to grab some of the $170 million in work it will take to rebuild the wharf that the proposed stadium will sit on.
As far as the Raiders, a somewhat serious proposal called Coliseum City is being pursued for the existing coliseum footprint/Raiders home that include two new stadiums, one football and one baseball. Will funds comes together or not is a question, but it does satisfy Raiders & NFL desire for a new and football only stadium. While no big financer has stepped up yet, it might not be far behind as their is a huge demand for bay area housing that is starting to spill over to the East Bay. This location has great transit access into SF as well as the fact that BART is being extended south into San Jose, not to mention a new connector into Oakland Airport is set to open.
On another front, a local business group led by Oakland based Clorox CEO has proposed buying the A's and building a waterfront stadium on existing Port of Oakland Property next to Jack London Square (think ATT Park across the Bay). This proposal might get some legs. It also accomplishes some thing else in favor of the Raiders by making aforementioned Coliseum City development only having to support one new stadium instead of two.
Interesting note that I just read. I don't have an official source, but it's from a guy who knows his stuff (and has no dog in the Rams/STL/LA fight).
Apparently when David Beckham was given the right to an MLS expansion franchise one of the stipulations was that he could not locate it in Los Angeles. And I don't mean earlier this week, I mean a couple of years ago (or whenever it was) that the MLS gave him the option if he ended up desiring to use it.
If the MLS wouldn't let Beckham—who played a role in growing the strength of the LA soccer fan base with the Galaxy—place another franchise in LA, why would they let Stan Kroenke? Kroenke's team in Colorado hasn't been much more than a team in Colorado.
Again, I just don't think there was anything to that "report." It was flimsy and probably false.
But I will hope that it came from a kernel of truth. I hope Kroenke was looking to secure another MLS franchise. If so, I suspect they'll begin play in St. Louis in a few years.
Gone Corporate, not related to RAMS but believe some of that $180 million might be spoken for if Geoff is correct with nextstl posting. Don't think it is a bad outcome for CVC or the region to get back to prioritizing the convention business. RAMS will sort itself one way or another but most likely comes down to wait Stan K really wants
Saw the Jaco Report on Fox 2 Sunday. He had Martin Kilcoyne on. They discussed the situation. Nothing really new to report from the discussion. However, they did say something I found to be interesting. MK believes that nobody, outside of hardcore NFL/Rams fans, really care, if the Rams leave. I don't necessariliy agree. I know the product has deteriorated on the field, causing public sentiment to do the same, but to say people do care that much, is not true. I think the Rams fell down the food chain of STL sports, but lower attendance (not awful), is due strictly to the product on the field. Franchises all across the US, regardless of sport, city, etc.. are seeing lower attendance, especially in markets where the team sucks. There will always be hardcore markets like Green Bay and Chicago, etc.. but I recall several teams having a hard time coming close to selling out playoff games. It is not unique to STL. I think, unless you can offer either a quality on field product or a great game-day experience, why not sit on my comfortable couch and watch the game in HD. I think attendance is a poor indicator in judging a fanbase, unless that team is good-great. Got a bit off track,but the moral of the story. I think losing the Rams will be a huge morale kill for the region. Anyone that preaches, we will live without NFL Football, I can agree with you. However, don't tell me that this will not affect our image on a national level. Let's see, 'most dangerous', '2nd biggest city in Missouri', ' huge population loss since mid-century' etc.. etc.. blah ..blah ..blah... just add lost 2 NFL teams to that list. I disagree, that losing the Rams will not hurt STL. It will, maybe not as much economically, but definitely mentally. As we all know, we have fragile egos here in STL. I'd hate to see another black-eye added to that list.
PS- If you caught DonnyBrook last Thursday, all of the group agreed that STL will be fine without the NFL. That is true, but I still want to keep the Rams, even if it costs us a little bit. All of those young professionals staging this tech boom in STL, enjoy things like football in their spare time. I think and hope that local movers and shakers and doing what they can behind the scenes.
DogtownBnR wrote:All of those young professionals staging this tech boom in STL, enjoy things like football in their spare time. I think and hope that local movers and shakers and doing what they can behind the scenes.
I think they care more about actual economic development so they have room to grow in their careers in St. Louis and quality, innovative people to work alongside. They probably also care more about having quality public education so they can send their kids to school someday, functioning public transit, and having a safer city. These are all that much more difficult to reach if we waste tens- and more likely hundreds- of millions of our region's and state's taxpayer dollars on a football stadium for a billionaire.
For whatever it's worth, if the Rams leave, I'm probably going to start looking harder for a career outside of St. Louis. It's not just losing the football team that I love over which I formed a connection with the City... I just don't want to live in a place that can't be united over the idea of building a world class venue to host big-time events and preserve one of our nation's 32 NFL franchises. Many of my friends feel similarly about this. We may be a minority, but Dogtown is definitely onto something when he says young professionals like things to do in our City, and having a venue to hold those things is key.
And by the way, let's be clear: framing the situation as if there's an untapped bank account sitting around and if the dollars don't go toward a new stadium, then they'll go toward a magic wand-wave that'll help fix our dismal "provisionally accredited" public school system or make our City safer is pure, unfiltered B.S., man. That isn't how it works, and mark my words: even if the anti-public-money-for-a-stadium crowd wins the day and the NFL abandons St. Louis, the City will continually rank on the top 10 most dangerous places in America for many years to come and all those young professionals who care more about quality public schools will still be moving to Clayton, Ladue, Kirkwood, Webster Groves, West County and St. Charles once they start families.
The only difference is now we also won't have representation in the NFL or a top-tier venue to attract big events, especially during the crappy winter months. I've said it before in this thread and elsewhere, and I'll say it again: We don't have mountains, or oceans, or an attractive climate. So to compete, we need things to do and we need places to host these things.
If our regional leadership can't fashion a creative, working proposal that the public can get behind like they did in places like Indianapolis (Indy! Of all places!), then, yeah, I think I'd rather be in places where the leadership can.
Or at least a place like Portland or Austin where there's nicer climate and/or mountains and water nearby and/or more stuff to do.
We don't need to spend hundreds of millions of public dollars to attract big name events. We're already on the official NCAA "shortlist" to host a Final Four sometime between 2017-2020. We're on the unofficial shortlist to host the DNC Convention in 2016. That's with our existing facilities. It's kind of a boondoggling billionaire's argument that St. Louis needs a publicly-financed new facility to attract major events.
And no, I don't think any magic wand will be waved to free up funds to take on improving education and public safety if the Rams leave, but the resources to address these issues will stretched that much thinner if we waste hundreds of millions on a stadium. It's not BS at all. It's the basic economic concept of opportunity cost that is used- or should be used- to examine all public expenditures.
And if the Rams leave, it's not like the Dome and America's Center is going to fall apart without their rent. Most likely, the CVC will use the $40-$50 million already in the bank to update the convention capacity of the facility. We'd likely be able to attract more actual investment into St. Louis from outside the region through conventions and major events than we can today if the Rams left.
DannyJ wrote:We don't need to spend hundreds of millions of public dollars to attract big name events. We're already on the official NCAA "shortlist" to host a Final Four sometime between 2017-2020. We're on the unofficial shortlist to host the DNC Convention in 2016. That's with our existing facilities. It's kind of a boondoggling billionaire's argument that St. Louis needs a publicly-financed new facility to attract major events.
Don't know if you've noticed, but "shortlists" are about the only thing St. Louis has been good enough to make for the past few years. And as other cities continue to update their sporting venues and convention facilities, expect the number of "shortlists" we make to continue to decline, as these events continue to go to the Minneapolises, Indianapolises, and Charlottes of the U.S. So, yes, we do need to spend it if we want to attract them and preserve an NFL franchise. My suspicion is that most St. Louisans just don't care if we do or don't; they're in the Bill McLellan mindset of acceptance that "our best days are behind us," and we should bite the bullet and let other cities garner attention and hold these kinds of events and provide that kind of entertainment... while we accelerate our trajectory toward that of "Columbus, OH with an MLB team." And I guess that's ok; Columbus is a fine city. Just not the kind of place I nor many of my friends want to be. It's certainly not the kind of City I grew up in and have lived in all my life.
The other day, one of the excellent Vines brothers posted that St. Louis "weeds out the posers" who need their "stimulation spoonfed to them." If this is an example of that, then I guess my friends and I are those "posers" so... so be it. At least St. Louis will always have the robotics convention, and that one Christian convention, I suppose, and whatever 1 or 2 marginally better conventions we might be able to snag once we dump $50 mil into our existing convention hall and the Rams aren't playing here anymore.
In the meantime, I'm going to continue to hope our leadership has more vision and creativity than that. I'm still cautiously optimistic that they are, but I suppose we'll see.
DannyJ wrote:We don't need to spend hundreds of millions of public dollars to attract big name events. We're already on the official NCAA "shortlist" to host a Final Four sometime between 2017-2020. We're on the unofficial shortlist to host the DNC Convention in 2016. That's with our existing facilities. It's kind of a boondoggling billionaire's argument that St. Louis needs a publicly-financed new facility to attract major events.
Don't know if you've noticed, but "shortlists" are about the only thing St. Louis has been good enough to make for the past few years. And as other cities continue to update their sporting venues and convention facilities, expect the number of "shortlists" we make to continue to decline, as these events continue to go to the Minneapolises, Indianapolises, and Charlottes of the U.S. So, yes, we do need to spend it if we want to attract them and preserve an NFL franchise. My suspicion is that most St. Louisans just don't care if we do or don't; they're in the Bill McLellan mindset of acceptance that "our best days are behind us," and we should bite the bullet and let other cities garner attention and hold these kinds of events and provide that kind of entertainment... while we accelerate our trajectory toward that of "Columbus, OH with an MLB team." And I guess that's ok; Columbus is a fine city. Just not the kind of place I nor many of my friends want to be. It's certainly not the kind of City I grew up in and have lived in all my life.
The other day, one of the excellent Vines brothers posted that St. Louis "weeds out the posers" who need their "stimulation spoonfed to them." If this is an example of that, then I guess my friends and I are those "posers" so... so be it. At least St. Louis will always have the robotics convention, and that one Christian convention, I suppose, and whatever 1 or 2 marginally better conventions we might be able to snag once we dump $50 mil into our existing convention hall and the Rams aren't playing here anymore.
In the meantime, I'm going to continue to hope our leadership has more vision and creativity than that. I'm still cautiously optimistic that they are, but I suppose we'll see.
^^^First off, nobody is advocating for the region to pony up for another stadium. I'm not sure where you drew that conclusion, from what I said. I do think, if Stan picks a site locally, we have to be willing to offer some incentives and some infrastructure work, just as we did for the Cardinals. I have never said we should build a public venue. We saw where that got us.
My point was not that young professionals coming here (and staying here) focus on football, as a reason they are here. However, it is ONE OF MANY things that young people look at, when going to a City or staying. It is a perception thing. Not only are you perceived as a big league city with NFL football, on the flipside, it will a HUGE negative, perception-wise, that we lost our team, twice! People from far away places, do not know what is happening in our central corridor. They do not know of the unique hoods we have here, the momentum we are gaining in the City. All they see is 'most dangerous city', lost Rams, lost many major HQ's..etc....etc.. etc... It is time to stop the bleeding. The Rams may not be an economic driver (except on game day Downtown), but NFL football means much more the a community. It forms a bond between residents and is part of what gives a City it's identity. I know that Cards and Blues do that too, but so do the Rams. We must do what we can to keep them. Again, I am not advocating we build another venue with public money. I think we should chip in though, like we did for the Cardinals. With the NFL G4 program and a smaller amount from the region, Stan can build a great venue here, for a fraction of the cost of building in LA.
Also, I know the Dome will serve many purposes if the Rams leave. It is a decent venue for many types of events. Its just not a great place to watch football. I agree, that the product on the field is a big reason for that, but let's face it. On any warm to comfortable day from September to November, we'd all rather be outside enjoying a game, not sitting in a dark and sterile dome.
Last thing... The Dome is almost 20 years old. If we want to attract BIG TIME events to it, the PUBLIC better be ready to drop some money into it, just to compete with venues across the country. I'm not talking about NFL football or Monster Truck. I'm talking about Final 4's, Political events and everything you are referring to dannyj. That venue is aging fast and it is obsolete and has been for a long time. We the public built and own that venue. We have to repair and upgrade it, just like you have to do to your own home every so often. It just so happens that the Dome needs multi-million dollar upgrades. If it means competing nationally, we as the taxpayers have to upgrade to place. It is, after all, a public venue. I would not advocate letting this place go down the toilet, allowing it to host only 2nd and 3rd tier events. That is the reality of the situation.
I personally think its essential St.Louis keeps this team here.. we're only going to get so many ncaa tourney's here and we arent guaranteed any final 4s and that list is very tough to compete against. I know most locals specially boomers could probably careless if the Rams left. Honestly it would suck being here during autumn and not being able to go to a game or tune in on fox not having the Rams here. This will be embarrassing to our region..I may not make much money but im rather open to doing whatever it takes to keep the Rams here or whatever it takes to benefit our region in being competitive..
-- if Kroenke wants an open air stadium, which some speculate is his preference, would your support for helping to finance a stadium go up or down? Put another way, would it be better to put public $$ to improving the Dome and Convention Center to attract big events?
-- if the County is selected as the proposed site, should City residents support such a venture with public $$?
As a charter Rams PSL and Season ticket holder. I don't have a problem with charging much of the upgrade/new stadium to the ticket buyers -- as long as it is an upgrade for ALL of them. Both proposals by CVC and the Rams did nothing for the fans in the regular seats -- not even a little padding in those expensive indoor lower bowl seats. It was all about high rollers and skyboxes.
And then we should charge visitors for a big portion of the cost via rental car taxes and hotel rooms, just as their cities make me pay when I go there. If we hit the business travelers, not tourists, they don't seem to mind paying. At least I've never heard my company complain.
I know most locals specially boomers could probably careless if the Rams left.
I know most forum member like to slam boomers at every opportunity.
If anything i would contend boomers are far more likely to own season tickets than any other age group, and hipsters are far more likely to prefer STL get an MLS team to a NFL franchise. In fact I believe the county has a strong base of support for the Rams in general.
As for the city supporting a Rams move to the county. Why is this even a question? That is the foundation of the Economic Advisory Council. The city and county agree on a package of incentives and honor them no matter where the (Rams) choose to locate. You can't only use it to help the city win over the county. It cuts both ways.
For the record I prefer the Rams stay near downtown.
roger wyoming II wrote:
-- if Kroenke wants an open air stadium, which some speculate is his preference, would your support for helping to finance a stadium go up or down? Put another way, would it be better to put public $$ to improving the Dome and Convention Center to attract big events?
That's a good point I hadn't thought about. If an open air stadium is built, I don't think it would help us attract any more major events to St. Louis outside of the Rams.
^ I agree with you about boomers. The boomers I know love NFL football. My parents have been season ticket holders since the Big Red. The County would likely support it and I would too, versus the Rams leaving. I'd prefer a stadium on the North Riverfront or somewhere downtown, but if keeping them means going to the County, so be it. I'd vote for Fenton, if I had to choose a spot in STL County. 2nd choice would be off the Page Extension. I think Chesterfield Valley (which is filling up with retail etc fast, not sure if even an option any longer) or Earth City, would be too congested. Fenton would have to add lanes, ramps and bridges, but it could work. I know Koman has expressed interest in attracting manufacturing, so who knows what options are really there, in STL. I bet Stan could get 60 acres on the northside, way cheaper than $90 million.
I'd prefer the CVC focus the Dome on big events, conventions and concerts, not football. I'd like to see football played in an outdoor venue, like Cincy or Pittsburgh, right on the river.
One thing to consider. If the Rams move and down the road, Jacksonville considers a move to STL (I know, I know, they are tied by their lease until 2029), Shad Kahn does own the EPL franchise Fulham. Maybe he could get a new stadium built here, that could house the MLS version of Fulham. I know this is probably a pipe-dream, but if the Rams move, the likely candidate to move here would be the Jags, considering Shad has STL ties and the president of the Jags is Mark Lamping, former Cardinals president and STL native. I'd rather just keep Stan and the Rams though. It is just unfortunate, all signs are pointing to LA with regards to his Gunners franchise. How awesome would it be to see them here, with the Rams in a dual-use venue. I know, I'm dreaming again.
STLEnginerd wrote:
As for the city supporting a Rams move to the county. Why is this even a question?
This is going to be just like the Arch/Parks tax with both City and County residents voting on any public incentives.... there is no reason for either city or county residents to support a particular tax just because its on the ballot. I do think location is one of many valid considerations for voters.
full disclosure: I'd like to see the stadium on the east riverfront.
Sorry if i sound like im slamming boomers cause im not. Just saying i think boomers would probably be more inclined in voting no on such a incentive or letting the team go since we're still paying on the EDJ .. I have lots of close boomer friends and most of them go to the Rams games and some are PSL owners.. The ones that arent could careless and say they would be glad to see the Rams go and don't let the door slam you in the back of the a** This isn't about boomer vs hipster it's about whats best for St.Louis as a whole and whats the best strategy in keeping the team here if possible for the foreseeable future...
As stated i dont make much money but whatever i can do to help St.Louis be the best city not only for myself but for all of us then im open arms. I will go on to say that Kroenke should foot majority of the bill if he's wanting a new stadium that badly but none of us should have to bare majority of the tab unless its for higher education or jobs from outside relocating here to St.Louis..
What about a hotel tax car rental tax thats how KC paying for the Sprint Center right?
