St. Louis Rams

blzhrpmd2 · PostMay 26, 2014#17512014-05-26T13:00+00:00

From the Keep Rams in STL Facebook page. I'm not really sure how to feel about this first one; I suppose any news on the subject will always be ominous due to Stan's poker face.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -nfl-team/

Speaking of which, some reminders from the same page that the oracle does speak (note: first article 2010)

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Rep ... Louis.html

DogtownBnR · PostMay 27, 2014#17522014-05-27T13:15+00:00

I've listened to Jay Nixon on 101 ESPN radio on multiple occasions. He has always come off to me as confident that the Rams will remain here in STL. He mentions 'progress' with the process and the fact that STL needs to remain a 'big league city' and keep the Rams. He also mentions that Stan is a fellow Missourian multiple times. I would LOVE to know what 'progress' or even what 'process' is actually going on, if there is actually a process or progress. If I'm Slay or Nixon, I am calling Kroenke weekly. Demoff continues to say the same thing, that the Rams are looking for a solution to stay in STL for the long haul. He has said that the Rams will not be playing in the Dome in the future. There better be a process going on or the Rams are gone. In the meantime, winning (rebuilding the fanbase) will help in that process.

dmelsh · PostMay 27, 2014#17532014-05-27T17:30+00:00

More talk from Randy and 101 espn. Talks about location and money.

An idea has been set forth to offer Kroenke a parcel of land near the Dome and allow him to join with public entities to build there. An area just north of Laclede’s Landing, bounded by 1st street to the east, Broadway to the west, Mullanphy to the north and Cass Street to the south would easily provide enough space for a stadium, with room east of 1st to the riverfront and west of Broadway to I-70 for parking and development.

Area seems a little small to me.

http://www.101sports.com/2014/05/27/opt ... ium-issue/

dredger · PostMay 27, 2014#17542014-05-27T19:57+00:00

^ Seattle Sea Hawks stadium comes to mind. Google that stadium and you will railroad tracks on both sides if not mistaken. I think it is doable and talk about a tie in for the immediate north and Laclede's Landing with its metrolink station and Arch Grounds as well as the same good central location/access to the region as a whole. Not to mention keeping within reach to the hotel rooms/casino/convention etc infrastructure

You get the impression that McKee'/Clyaco's speculative play for bottlework property for a quick buck might not be in cards. They might have to actually develop the site. Instead, maybe Stan K see's opportunity to take a stab at the downtown development game with the site noted above. At some point you would think that a BPV/DeWitt/Cordish, a Cupples/Koman, Union Station/LHM, a Northside/22nd Interchange/McKee, a Laclede's Landing/Tropican/Drury and maybe a Rams/Stan K could make something happen downtown, a relocation, a new residential tower.

rbb · PostMay 28, 2014#17552014-05-28T14:54+00:00

dmelsh wrote:More talk from Randy and 101 espn. Talks about location and money.

An idea has been set forth to offer Kroenke a parcel of land near the Dome and allow him to join with public entities to build there. An area just north of Laclede’s Landing, bounded by 1st street to the east, Broadway to the west, Mullanphy to the north and Cass Street to the south would easily provide enough space for a stadium, with room east of 1st to the riverfront and west of Broadway to I-70 for parking and development.
Area seems a little small to me.

http://www.101sports.com/2014/05/27/opt ... ium-issue/

This is the area on Google Maps.

^ It's about four square blocks, which is roughly the footprint of the current stadium. Of course they'd likely also "need" an adjacent parking garage, which could expand the footprint somewhat. You'd also have to tear down a few historic warehouses (mostly empty today) to make it happen.

It could be an opportunity to renovate the Southwestern Freight Depot building, which would be staring the proposed new stadium in the face. Keep the Rally STL mural on the river-facing side and restore the stadium-facing side and I'd be on board.

-RBB

goat314 · PostMay 28, 2014#17562014-05-28T15:47+00:00

It would be sad to lose so much of our historic riverfront. Those cast iron buildings can not be replaced and really give St. Louis a unique feel. I would hope that any plan would include future mixed use development, but I'm not optimistic. I'd imagine we are looking at another BPV. Something that will be parking lots for at least a decade after the thing is built. I also would not favor a stadium without a retractable roof in 2014. That just sounds asinine. The one benefit I see is that the area will likely see a lot of beautification and new infrastructure as a result of the stadium. Hopefully that historic row of buildings facing Broadway can be incorporated into the venue some how as concessions or bars. My only hope.

roger wyoming II · PostMay 28, 2014#17572014-05-28T16:24+00:00

Here is a new article out from NYT on the new Vikings stadium and related Downtown East project:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/reale ... .html?_r=2

It gives a good overview of how that downtown is moving forward in a gear that is leaving ones like ours behind.

Officials broke ground this month on the city’s largest real estate project in two decades, a $400 million mixed-use development going up next to the new stadium.

The five-block project, called Downtown East, includes plans for two 18-story office towers for Wells Fargo, a six-level parking ramp, about 24,000 square feet of retail space, 193 apartments and a four-acre urban park near the stadium’s northwest corner....

Mayor Hodges said Downtown East was part of a broader citywide goal to double the number of downtown residents, now 35,000....

Ultimately, Downtown East is a chance to spur the development that the 31-year-old Metrodome failed to generate, said Michael Langley, chief executive of the Minneapolis St. Paul Regional Economic Development Partnership. “This is an opportunity for a huge do-over,” he said.

If we were capable of accomplishing something similar, where would be the best site?

BrickCity4470 · PostMay 28, 2014#17582014-05-28T19:48+00:00

I just came from Minneapolis visiting my friend there and all he could talk about is how excited he's about the super bowl and the impressive stadium although the tax payers are footing a majority of the stadium he does feel its a big win for all of Minneapolis. He's heard such as possible new large hotel and the residential to be built is legit.. I felt a lot of civic pride there people are happy .. I hope we St.Louisan's can in dear such a great feeling and pride about our city such as the folks in Minneapolis do about theirs..

blzhrpmd2 · PostMay 28, 2014#17592014-05-28T20:46+00:00

^And that pride needs to be shared and displayed by corporations. Perusing articles like the one above about Minn's growth and potential just solidifies my opinion that if we lose the Rams it will just fuel the media fire of disparaging comments about our city. There is already enough of that and I shutter at the thought.

moorlander · PostMay 28, 2014#17602014-05-28T21:09+00:00

Baylor University incorporated a marina into their new stadium plans. Other Universities like the University of Tennessee also have marinas for tailgating and increased transportation options. Let's reconnect with the river.

http://www.baylor-stadium.com/the-look/

gary kreie · PostMay 28, 2014#17612014-05-28T22:07+00:00

Here is how Cologne was able to create a marina downtown in the Rhine river.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9294245 ... a=!3m1!1e3

roger wyoming II · PostMay 28, 2014#17622014-05-28T22:55+00:00

^ that's pretty awesome.... something like that would be great for the Saint Louis Riverfront even without the island of construction; a channel for a marina and maybe kayaking and what not would be great. I think our lack of an engaging riverfront really is a disadvantage for us compared to other river and lake front cities. Hopefully the Central Riverfront Trail and other improvements associated with the Arch improvements will help, but it won't be able to address the visual dead zone across the river.

Presbyterian · PostMay 29, 2014#17632014-05-29T00:27+00:00

With the river channelized for barge traffic downtown, it would take major investment to make it suitable for pleasure craft.

I long have dreamed of a lock and damn south of St. Louis. Then the Mississippi would be like it is north of Alton... wide, calm and deep. Early in the nineteenth century, the Mississippi was double its current width downtown.

roger wyoming II · PostMay 29, 2014#17642014-05-29T00:46+00:00

^ yeah, engineering isn't as much of a problem when you have a public works budget to get things done; once again its reflective of our regional schism. I guess in a way the Choteau Greenway would serve several of the functions of a vibrant riverfront. If progress could be made on that downtown in combo with the Central Riverfront Trail and some NPS additions across the river, I think that would be a big step up for downtown.

Presbyterian · PostMay 29, 2014#17652014-05-29T00:53+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Craig Heller and Loftworks just spend $5 million to renovate the southern part of the proposed site? Isn't it National Register of Historic Places?

Plenty of replaceable things in that neighborhood: a prison, storage tanks, etc. I'd much rather see those sites in play.

roger wyoming II · PostMay 29, 2014#17662014-05-29T01:07+00:00

^ good catch.

matguy70 · PostMay 29, 2014#17672014-05-29T03:34+00:00

5 million is a drop in the bucket for Kroenke to pay to Heller if that is the case.

Alos, these buildings incorporated into the new stadium site would be amazing: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.638952, ... hMjlOQ!2e0

DogtownBnR · PostJun 05, 2014#17682014-06-05T13:33+00:00

The view from LA........
You can take some good and some bad from Sam Farmer's (LA Times) take on the LA NFL saga. Nothing really new, but thought I'd post it anyway.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... am-farmer/

stlien · PostJun 05, 2014#17692014-06-05T17:14+00:00

goat314 wrote:It would be sad to lose so much of our historic riverfront.

I agree.

dweebe · PostJun 05, 2014#17702014-06-05T17:52+00:00

Maybe the whole thing with Donald Sterling selling the Los Angeles Clippers for $2billion is a good thing for St. Louis?

Maybe the NFL sees the sale and goes "Hey, an NBA team in LA just sold for $2billion! Heck, we could get even more than that putting an expansion team or two there." So that means the Rams, Chargers and Bills would be more valuable staying where they are instead of moving.

Just a thought.

BrickCity4470 · PostJun 05, 2014#17712014-06-05T21:43+00:00

LA is better off getting a expansion team or 2 than having a team relocate.. I think LA is more likely to support a expansion team then a team relocating there. They can essentially say its their team and not from another city... just my take on it

blzhrpmd2 · PostJun 06, 2014#17722014-06-06T04:07+00:00

Thing is, I think a lot of fans in LA feel like we are just borrowing their team for awhile as a result of the whims and wishes of former ownership.

The fact that various opinions can so emphatically be quoted about this makes me think no one really has any idea what's going to happen. Eg: Bernie seems to think anyone who doesnt agree expansion is inevitable just isn't paying attention. Meanwhile guys like Mike and Mike act like no way expansion happens. Between the London nonsense, owners like Ross in Miami saying a relocation is happening within 5 years, Mark Davis talking about both options of relocation and soft loyalty to Oakland, Kroenke's LA land purchase, there's no reliable barometer. To me, as much as we all have a tendency to be skeptical of his "silence" I think Kroenke comes off as the most shrewd in this. Hopefully that shrewdness hides a willingness to "step up for football in Missouri one more time" and not a desire to remain a Missourian but answer the siren call of the west coast maximizing profits Albert Pujols style.

stlien · PostJun 06, 2014#17732014-06-06T04:34+00:00

Can STL afford another tax increase if the transportation tax passes?

jstriebel · PostJun 06, 2014#17742014-06-06T06:10+00:00

dweebe wrote:Maybe the whole thing with Donald Sterling selling the Los Angeles Clippers for $2billion is a good thing for St. Louis?

Maybe the NFL sees the sale and goes "Hey, an NBA team in LA just sold for $2billion! Heck, we could get even more than that putting an expansion team or two there." So that means the Rams, Chargers and Bills would be more valuable staying where they are instead of moving.

Just a thought.

I think this is absolutely the right train of thought. I don't see much chance the sale price of the Clippers is bad news for St. Louis.

If Kroenke had a history of buying and selling teams, it'd be worrisome. But he doesn't. He's built and expanded his sports empire. So the sale value of the Rams probably isn't a huge factor in his decision. I'd think the fact that he's getting older and his son is now in the business as well only make a future sale even less on his radar.

In the long-run, LA is a more profitable market, and that's what would matter. But STL can and should still be pretty vibrant.

And as you mentioned, this just means the NFL is going to require a HUGE expansion or relocation fee. Factor in the stadium cost, and it really just doesn't make sense for Kroenke to spend all of that money upfront just to get to LA.

dweebe · PostJun 06, 2014#17752014-06-06T16:47+00:00

jstriebel wrote:
dweebe wrote:Maybe the whole thing with Donald Sterling selling the Los Angeles Clippers for $2billion is a good thing for St. Louis?

Maybe the NFL sees the sale and goes "Hey, an NBA team in LA just sold for $2billion! Heck, we could get even more than that putting an expansion team or two there." So that means the Rams, Chargers and Bills would be more valuable staying where they are instead of moving.

Just a thought.
I think this is absolutely the right train of thought. I don't see much chance the sale price of the Clippers is bad news for St. Louis.

If Kroenke had a history of buying and selling teams, it'd be worrisome. But he doesn't. He's built and expanded his sports empire. So the sale value of the Rams probably isn't a huge factor in his decision. I'd think the fact that he's getting older and his son is now in the business as well only make a future sale even less on his radar.

In the long-run, LA is a more profitable market, and that's what would matter. But STL can and should still be pretty vibrant.

And as you mentioned, this just means the NFL is going to require a HUGE expansion or relocation fee. Factor in the stadium cost, and it really just doesn't make sense for Kroenke to spend all of that money upfront just to get to LA.

I'd also think that any existing team moving to LA is either going to get blocked or be forced to pay some sort of huge "dowry" to the other owners. You know a number of the owners have to be crunching the math of multiple billions in expansion fees divided by 32 teams. And IIRC, expansion fees is all cash into the owner's pockets.

I think LA has served it's purpose for the last 18 years and extorted tons of new stadiums for existing teams. That well has pretty much run dry.

St. Louis Rams

Choose Display Mode