urbanSTL

LA...?

The Farmer's Field option in downtown LA remains in play if they (with approval of the league) can get an NFL owner to sell part of their team.

dweebe wrote:

jstriebel wrote:LA...?

The Farmer's Field option in downtown LA remains in play if they (with approval of the league) can get an NFL owner to sell part of their team.

You mean back to LA?

Yeah. Just as they went back to Oakland.

rawest1 wrote:

blzhrpmd2 wrote:So the question is if Stan were the one out there saying "I want to stay in St. Louis" if they can make it happen, would we feel better? My initial reaction to this article is that if I were Raider fan in Oakland, I'm not sure Davis' narrative would make me feel any better because it doesn't really change anything and the prospect of a move doesn't go away.

No, and I don't think most would. No matter what Stan says, he stands to gain negligible (if any) benefit from making public statements about the situation. So, we'll never see him say anything until something is going to happen.

The Rams (Kevin Demoff) keeps saying his job is to sell fans on the coming season only, implying they are thinking year to year, and season ticket holders should only try to find enjoyment year to year. But part of the enjoyment comes from seeing a team or player develop over multiple seasons. I expect that if they announced a dome agreement through 2019 with an option through 2025, season ticket sales would be higher by 20-30% vs. the current uncertainty environment.

That would be real action, though, Gary, and that's different.

I think the point was that if Kroenke just came out and said "we're going to work our hardest to get a deal done in St. Louis," nothing really changes. It'd be the same words as Demoff, only out of Kroenke's mouth, and there's be no real action behind it.

It might be 100% the truth, but the words don't make people feel better.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Davis back in the news a few days ago talking about LA again. It's funny to compare owners' styles of communication regarding stadium issues.

Also, Mike and Mike briefly talked about an Oakland to LA move. Golic seemed very confident that an LA franchise would come in the form of a move, not expansion. It's nteresting how this "for sure" attitude by someone who I'd like to think is in the know can stand in stark contrast to someone like Bernie who acts like there is far too much money available for owners through expansion.

Both Mikes expressed concern that an LA franchise may struggle economically unless very successful on the field because of the temptations of good weather and "all there is to do in LA." I'd be just fine if the NFL never went back to LA, but I get so tired of hearing that argument. LA is not the only place in the country with good weather and lots to do. That argument (made by guys paid to watch sports) belittles every other city in the country with an NFL team, and the NFL product for that matter-basically saying that no one really wants to watch an NFL football game, they just do so because their cities offer nothing of any value as an alternative. What a joke.

No kidding. What a condescending tight-ass. I don't even watch football. I would rather go do something - even if the weather is bad - because St. Louis has lots to offer besides football. So do Seattle, Atlanta, and...whatever other cities have a football team. L.A., if anything, is just too hot to even bother going outside.

I'm frequently bothered when people talk about there being nothing to do in cities—especially urban cores (as opposed to that one suburb or rural town that someone grew up in).

Almost 90% of the time there is no more or less to do than another city with an urban core, there are just more locations at which to do it.

Chicago and St. Louis is a comparison we get a lot due to geography. And yes, Chicago is way bigger. And there is more stuff. But are there really any more attractions? No. Are there more movie theaters and more bars and more clubs? Yes. But there aren't more things to do. There's just more of those things.

If you're bored in an urban core, you need to re-evaluate.

^Having spent a lot of time in all of the major US cities I 100% agree with that assertion. Secondarily, I firmly believe that St Louis offers all the amenities of a top 10 city.

Want to visit somewhere that has nothing to do? Go to a town as small as Olympia, WA. It's $20 to get into a state park in WA on the rare occasion it isn't pouring down rain outside. The town of Olympia itself has only one museum and no sports teams. All it has is a skate park, two movie theatres, and a small live theatre. Most people just go to house shows for entertainment. It's no wonder everyone up there just gets high all the time, that's really all there is to do. It's just a little suburban town in the middle of the woods. Their tallest building, a whopping ten-story behemoth, has been abandoned since the '70s. Despite the City having released a report years ago about how it could house the town's entire homeless population (which is in the thousands), there is no money to do it. I think that idea was supposed to be similar to our own FarmWorks.

St. Louis is NOT like that. If even one of our developments under construction or proposed were built there (The Ready Room, Blues Museum, Trestle, Loop Trolley, etc.) it would be that town's crown jewel, hands down. But that town will never have what we have. It isn't an important city and the only reason it's even on maps is because it is, sadly, the capitol, though it's not nearly as nice as Jefferson City. When I lived up there, the only three things they built were:

-a parking garage with no street-level retail
-a Chipotle drive-thru
-a vacant lot at the busiest intersection in the whole town was turned into a "park"

So while St. Louis might not be as big as L.A. or Chicago, it's still got world-class attractions and loads of places to go and stuff to see.

The argument that LA can't support an NFL team because there's so much other stuff to do makes no sense to me. If anything, LA should have an easier time supporting a football team because the nice weather makes for a much more pleasant game-going experience than places like Chicago or Green Bay.

The argument I've always heard is that LA can't support a football team because there are so many transplants who remain loyal to their hometown teams. Of course this doesn't make much sense either since these same transplants manage to support two baseball teams, two NBA teams, two hockey teams, one of two MLS teams, USC, and UCLA. The region is home to over 18 million people. Even if only 10% were LA-born potential fans, that still leaves a larger market than NFL-crazed Indianapolis.

Did the Rams and Raiders even leave because of poor fan support? I thought it was due to stadium deals and two of the nuttiest owners in league history.

I'm not really sure why the Raiders left.

The Rams left mostly due to stadium concerns, but they also struggled with fan support. Many say the team ran the fans off and then used it as justification. I'm sympathetic to that notion, although there was some good Rams teams in LA that did not draw well.

But fan support, or at least fan attendance, has an extremely small impact on whether teams relocate or not in the NFL. Gate money means a lot in the NHL. It means a lot less in the NFL.

Teams stay or go based on where they can find the best stadium situation (and sometimes just where the owner wants to be). Attendance usually correlates with teams that move, but it's typically because the team was crummy in the first place and therefore there wasn't a lot of public support to subsidize stadium improvements.

I would like to see CVC go ahead and install the 96- foot wide and 26-foot wide hanging video screen over the field at the Edward Jones Dome, as they proposed in the upgrade proposal document. It would be used for a lot more than just the Rams. I'm sure it would look great at One Direction concerts and NCAA finals, and would help fill the seats in the upper tier.

I estimate it would cost about $12 million. It would be 1/4 the size of the one in Dallas, which is 160' by 72' and cost $40 million, but ours would be nearly as impressive since the fans in the EJD sit so much closer to the field than do the fans in the Jerry Dome upper tier. Also, Houston's Reliant Stadium installed a giant video screen in 2013 on the side that is 277' by 52' and cost $16.5 million.

While they are at it, they can install brighter lighting to end the "the dome is too dim" reputation while they are at it. They should have lighting dimable from "off" all the way up to "bright sunshine at noon with shadows." That should cost no more than $1 million.

For a lousy $13 million, they could greatly improve the visual experience at the dome.

I see what you're saying Gary, but I believe the roof would need to be redone in order to hold that screen which likely makes it more than your estimate.

Aside from that, I'm not sure it's worth it for a building that's going to be empty within 5 or 6 years. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.

jstriebel wrote:I see what you're saying Gary, but I believe the roof would need to be redone in order to hold that screen which likely makes it more than your estimate.

Aside from that, I'm not sure it's worth it for a building that's going to be empty within 5 or 6 years. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.

CVC already proposed exactly this hanging video screen in their upgrade proposal to the Rams with no special roof changes, as far as I know. A few years after the dome opened, they hung a large speaker cluster from the existing roof grid to improve sound. I don't believe video screens would be heavier than that.

I think in 5 or 6 years a large video screen is exactly what you would want in the dome for special events, especially if the Rams move elsewhere.

You could be right. I do know that the proposal mentioned replacing the roof as it needed to be done anyways. But roof replacement may not correspond with the hanging of the screen.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I personally am dubious that the Dome will remain standing for very long after a new stadium is built. Certainly America's Center will remain, but the dome itself seems like it wouldn't have a great deal of uses.

If the Rams do end up building a new Stadium which seems likely what will take the Dome's place even if they decided to tear it down?

BrickCity4470 wrote:If the Rams do end up building a new Stadium which seems likely what will take the Dome's place even if they decided to tear it down?

Why tear it down? It is convention and potential NBA space. Like the one in San Antonio.

How many conventions actually take place inside the dome as opposed to the attached convention center? I know there's some that utilize the floor space, but even then, how many utilize the seating?

The Dome may stay standing for a while because it's cheaper to do nothing with it than to tear it down but I don't see it being around long-term.

And I certainly don't think the NBA will have an impact. The Scottrade Center would be our NBA home. Now, if you mean NCAA Final Fours, that's a different story, but I still don't think that's in the long-term future of the Dome.

The Dome won't get Final Fours either because the new stadium has a roof of some kind and is getting them, or because the Dome is not a nice enough venue relative to the competing cities' bids.

I just don't see much of a future for it.