St. Louis Rams

Greatest St. Louis · PostJun 24, 2014#18012014-06-24T23:13+00:00

To be clear, there are things wrong with the Dome. The luxury boxes are not as nice (which limits a major potential revenue stream), the parking situation is not ideal for the Rams (another revenue stream issue), the stadium's footprint is very small, which results in a limited number of entrances relatively close to each other (which makes it take forever to enter on game days), and it is now one of only two closed-roof domed stadiums now in the league (a rather obsolete design, which should be of no surprise considering its designs were originally drawn up in the 1980's for the St. Louis [Football] Cardinals ).

Having said that, it is structurally sound (see: and can readily host events for many many years to come. The Rams' lease, while they can opt out after this year, technically runs through 2025. There is a stadium issue, and it will be resolved in time, but people who want a quick solution will be disappointed.

This is not going to be resolved for years.

gary kreie · PostJun 25, 2014#18022014-06-25T14:20+00:00

I agree. I don't hear regular fans complaining about the dome. Just the Rams and occasional visitors. "Wow, I thought it would be louder than this," from a fan who was not wearing blue, didn't cheer, and watched the game like a tourist with his arms folded most of the game. I never did see how the Rams proposal would enhance the gameday experience for all non-suite fans. Maybe the Rams think new wood paneling in the suites will make the team want to play better. (Didn't work for Dallas.)

I pointed out yeas ago on this board that there was room for a hanging video screen in the dome even before Dallas had their stadium finished, although somewhat smaller. And I've always said the charge that the dome is kind of dim can easily be mitigated with very bright lighting -- essentially simulating a hole in the roof -- for a fraction of the cost of cutting one.

roger wyoming II · PostJun 25, 2014#18032014-06-25T14:24+00:00

^ It would be something if in the end the result is something comparable to what the CVB originally proposed. But what fun would it be to go without years of protracted speculation and angst and having CVB/taxpayers fork over for Rams lawyers' fees?

dweebe · PostJun 25, 2014#18042014-06-25T16:08+00:00

gary kreie wrote:I pointed out yeas ago on this board that there was room for a hanging video screen in the dome even before Dallas had their stadium finished, although somewhat smaller. And I've always said the charge that the dome is kind of dim can easily be mitigated with very bright lighting -- essentially simulating a hole in the roof -- for a fraction of the cost of cutting one.

As I understand it they claim they can't do anything with the existing roof because of the original design with was dictated by 100 year snowstorm levels and earthquake concerns. Plus the need to support the lighting rigs used for conventions.

But a nice transparent roof that let a lot of light in didn't stop the Atlanta Falcons from "needing" a replacement for the Georgia Dome.

PostJun 25, 2014#18052014-06-25T16:11+00:00

BTW: here's some new pictures of the planned Falcons Stadium.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/gall ... adium.html

This is what $1.2 billion will get you.

Not a fan at all.

jstriebel · PostJun 25, 2014#18062014-06-25T18:54+00:00

I wouldn't anticipate any sort of compromise upgrades for a 10-15 year lease extension. If the city is going to pour a significant amount of public funds into a stadium, it's going to expect a long-term commitment. And the Rams are entitled to play in the dome for another decade with an opt-out option each year essentially.

So that sort of thing doesn't benefit either side. There will be (and currently are) minor upgrades in the interim. But you won't see major structural changes or anything like that.

That's one reason the CVC was never going to meet the "First Tier" clause anyways. Doing so would have only locked the Rams in for 10 more years at great expense. That was never going to be acceptable.

The CVC and the Rams will come to an expensive agreement at some point, and with that will come a multiple decade lease.

PostJun 25, 2014#18072014-06-25T19:07+00:00

dweebe wrote:
goat314 wrote:^ Exactly, The NFL is not leaving St. Louis. If Stan wants a new stadium, Roger and Jay (or whoever is governor at the time) will grant his wishes. The $Billion stadium deal will definitely be settled by 2020.
The Rams will get a new stadium but it won't be a billion dollar palace.
-When the Scottrade Center was built it was one of the least expensive 90's era arenas in the NHL whether measured by 1994 or 2014 dollars.
-Busch Stadium 3 was one of the cheapest new stadiums. According to wikipedia it's $427 million compared to $527 mil in Philadelphia, $562 mil in San Diego, $589 in Minneapolis or $650 mil in Miami. (all 2014 values)

I wouldn't be so sure about this, for a few reasons.

1. The stadium financing climate has shifted. The public is no longer as willing to provide the majority of the funding for stadiums. When the Cardinals built their primarily privately financed stadium, that was rare, and they likely had a cap of how much they were willing to put into it. The public should only wind up on the hook for about 1/3 of the new Rams stadium cost, and that shouldn't catch anyone off guard.

2. The NFL has a loan program to help fund stadiums. The program is called the G4 program, and my latest understanding of it is that if the public contributes and the owner contributes, they'll match up to $200 million. That's somewhere between 1/4-1/5 of what the stadium will probably cost. It's technically a loan to the owner because it is slowly paid back through withheld revenue in future years, but it's a big help up front.

3. Stan Kroenke's is the NFL's 2nd-most wealthy owner and the 7th most wealthy owner in North American major pro sports. When the stadiums were built (or even right now), the Blues and Cardinals ownership could not touch that. Kroenke doesn't have to settle for a lesser stadium because he has the funds to ensure it's top notch. He's playing hardball for now because of course he wants to get what he can from the public. But when it comes down to it, it's unlikely he'll skimp. Rather, I suspect he'll have a stadium vision he wants to see met. He'll see how much he can get covered by the public, and then he'll utilize the G4 funding and his own pocket book to take care of the rest.

gary kreie · PostJun 25, 2014#18082014-06-25T21:11+00:00

dweebe wrote:BTW: here's some new pictures of the planned Falcons Stadium.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/gall ... adium.html

This is what $1.2 billion will get you.

Not a fan at all.

When I saw this view, I thought it was a giant Chipotle with drive-thru initially.

I guess everyone wants a hard roof to hang lighting and other things from nowadays. I'm still not sure why we couldn't just remove a few roof coverings leaving the structure in place to get either a hole or recover with something translucent. (Call Fredrick Roofing. "For a hole in your roof or...") And wrt snow, I think heaters could take care of that. What did they use on the old inflated domes in Minneapolis and Detroit for snow?

blzhrpmd2 · PostJun 25, 2014#18092014-06-25T21:39+00:00

Like I said, I understand why owners want to upgrade and maximize profits, but that doesn't mean that there is anything inherently wrong with what's there as a place to watch football. The list of shortcomings above are mostly in comparison to other facilities, which unfortunately our dumb lease includes as relevant. Again, as a regular at the dome, and someone who usually sits in "regular" seats but as also been fortunate enough to sit in luxury areas, I think both serve their purpose. I've never had a parking issue. The wait at the gates seem just as impeded by necessary security checks as they are by lack of entrances. Keep in mind also, that visiting fans can just as easily like what we have. At the Bears game last year, a couple from Chicago thought it was great: cheaper parking, cheaper surrounding restaurants and bars, hotel across the street vs. giant parking lot to trek across, metro access, warm inside vs. freezing outside, etc...

I just keep going back to 1999-2004: were people going crazy but quietly whispering "this place is really too dark..." Yes, the NFL has changed a lot and a lot of new stadiums happened, but I will always be of the belief that the knocks on our stadium are amplified because the product playing on it has been dismal.

The "stadium issue" from an owners/CVC perspective is different, and yes, I agree it will not go away anytime soon, nor would I expect it to. Stan will play the game as well as anyone could.

In regards to the renderings above, what are specific criticisms to the ATL digs?

dweebe · PostJun 25, 2014#18102014-06-25T22:04+00:00

blzhrpmd2 wrote: The wait at the gates seem just as impeded by necessary security checks as they are by lack of entrances.

All the other NFL stadiums I've been to have more and better entrances and don't have anywhere near the backup we do at the Ed Jones Dome. The problem is you get through the doors and past the turnstiles you only have two escalators and two stairs to go upwards from street level.

Though I wasn't a fan of how non-suite people had to go to the huge entry plazas at the endzones of Cowboys/AT&T Stadium.

blzhrpmd2 wrote: In regards to the renderings above, what are specific criticisms to the ATL digs?

Seems like a surrounding unfriendly fortress.

But maybe it's just bad renderings.

beer city · PostJun 25, 2014#18112014-06-25T22:16+00:00

dweebe wrote:
blzhrpmd2 wrote: The wait at the gates seem just as impeded by necessary security checks as they are by lack of entrances.
All the other NFL stadiums I've been to have more and better entrances and don't have anywhere near the backup we do at the Ed Jones Dome. The problem is you get through the doors and past the turnstiles you only have two escalators and two stairs to go upwards from street level.

Though I wasn't a fan of how non-suite people had to go to the huge entry plazas at the endzones of Cowboys/AT&T Stadium.

blzhrpmd2 wrote: In regards to the renderings above, what are specific criticisms to the ATL digs?
Seems like a surrounding unfriendly fortress.

But maybe it's just bad renderings.

The Galactic Empire is proud of its new Atlanta facility - Lord Vader himself will be there for the groundbreaking

dbInSouthCity · PostJun 26, 2014#18122014-06-26T00:03+00:00

Stadium design in the US generally sucks. Seems like in other counties they take more risks with design.

Greatest St. Louis · PostJun 26, 2014#18132014-06-26T00:58+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:Stadium design in the US generally sucks. Seems like in other counties they take more risks with design.

Which is funny because it's usually the same 2 or 3 architectural firms designing all these stadiums all over the world.

dweebe · PostJun 26, 2014#18142014-06-26T02:40+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:Stadium design in the US generally sucks. Seems like in other counties they take more risks with design.

I don't know. It's just been in the last decade or so where the designs have gotten wilder.
-a lot of China's 2012 Olympic venues
-Allianz Arena in Munich

-Wembly Stadium

And now you're seeing more interesting designs like the Falcon's new place or the Viking's new design.

Emirates Stadium (designed before Stan Kronke owned a majority of Arsenal) wouldn't look out of place as an NFL venue.

gary kreie · PostJun 27, 2014#18152014-06-27T16:07+00:00

There are Wells Fargo Towers (skyscrapers) in multiple downtowns around the country. Wells Fargo just announced they are building two new 18 story towers in Minneapolis as part of the Vikings Stadium project. I also read that US Bank (which bought out Mercantile and Roosevelt Federal I believe), is likely to win the naming rights for the new Vikings Stadium.

Since St. Louisans pour tons of cash into these two institutions through takeovers of long-standing St. Louis institutions, can we get the Mayor to suggest that one or both get involved with a new stadium and skyscraper development in our downtown? Wells Fargo is big here, but needs the local name recognition that would come with owning the premier tower in St. Louis. Instead, our money is making other downtowns into showplaces.

roger wyoming II · PostJun 27, 2014#18162014-06-27T16:40+00:00

^ Wells Fargo recently received incentives to help build out unused space at its current campus for about 400 additional employees and there is room for more so I don't know of the likelihood of a replacement tower. I hope however that it is able to continue to grow more and at least do some modest new construction at is site.

I'm also wary of an abandonment of its present campus for a high-profile tower elsewhere... sure a marquee tower would be cool but I'd hate to have another huge property sitting empty in an overall difficult office market. If WF feels it really needs new Class A to meet its needs then that's one thing, but what I would prefer to see is an impressive tower anchored by a different firm as part of a 22nd Street interchange project that would build upon Wells Fargo's presence. Such a tower would help frame the terminus of the Gateway Mall and bring more jobs and activity to the Downtown West area... ideally this would be anchored by an additional financial services firm coming to the region. I know Wells Fargo and Ed Jones leaders are among those leading an effort to bring more firms to town so you never know.

TheNewSaintLouis · PostJun 27, 2014#18172014-06-27T19:33+00:00

I strongly believe if the city tried building a new class A modern tower they could get a company from out of town to commit to it we maybe not get the company to completely move here but could get them to add jobs here. I think its a risk worth taking as for Wells Fargo do you think they are in hunt for new Class A office space?

stlien · PostJun 28, 2014#18182014-06-28T04:10+00:00

TheNewSaintLouis wrote:I strongly believe if the city tried building a new class A modern tower they could get a company from out of town to commit to it we maybe not get the company to completely move here but could get them to add jobs here.

Yes, a company would move here if we have the space ready. One of STL's biggest issues is lack of available, quality space.

DogtownBnR · PostJul 21, 2014#18192014-07-21T13:02+00:00

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... s-landlord

I'm sure what to think about this, but I'd have to think it is a good thing. If this becomes a reality, I'd have to think this would prevent a rogue owner from packing the vans up overnight and moving a team. Then again, could the NFL relocate a team after they've 'exhausted every option in their current market' to get a new team? Another twist and turn in this saga. London also seems to be a goal of Goodell's. That is scary considering Stan has a venue and already owns Arsenal. What is most scary is the fact that there is no talk that the public is privy to, regarding a new venue here. I sure hope the politicians here are smart enough to be working on this issue in the background.

Greatest St. Louis · PostJul 21, 2014#18202014-07-21T13:25+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... s-landlord

I'm sure what to think about this, but I'd have to think it is a good thing. If this becomes a reality, I'd have to think this would prevent a rogue owner from packing the vans up overnight and moving a team. Then again, could the NFL relocate a team after they've 'exhausted every option in their current market' to get a new team? Another twist and turn in this saga. London also seems to be a goal of Goodell's. That is scary considering Stan has a venue and already owns Arsenal. What is most scary is the fact that there is no talk that the public is privy to, regarding a new venue here. I sure hope the politicians here are smart enough to be working on this issue in the background.

First of all, hypothetically, it would not be a good thing. The thing that has prevented the Chargers, Vikings, Raiders and now Rams from moving to L.A. is there isn't a good stadium to play in there. If this were built, then there would be a good stadium to play in there. Obviously that would be bad news for St. Louis fans. Having said that...

This won't happen.

You're not going to get Jerry Jones, John Kevin Mara, Woody Johnson et. al. to agree to subsidize the construction of a stadium for other teams to play in while they're also busy having paid for building/maintaining their own facilities. They would also have to hope that whatever team(s) playing there would not suffer any blackouts (which have been known to happen in L.A.), because doing so would adversely impact the NFL's bargaining leverage with FOX and CBS for television contracts, the revenue from which is shared equally among all 32 franchises.

If the NFL rents a facility to a team (or teams), do those teams get to take home all the money generated by the advertising in the stadium, the sale of corporate suites and PSLs, and concession stand sales? Right now, that's what Stan does in St. Louis. Would the NFL owners be okay with subsidizing a stadium for one or two teams to do that? I'm not so sure.

It seems to me this is little more than the NFL continually pushing forward in its efforts to prop up L.A. as a threat for relocation so that places like St. Louis take notice and chip in for a new stadium for the respective teams they each host.

DogtownBnR · PostJul 21, 2014#18212014-07-21T14:35+00:00

^ I don't know if I agree with you. The NFL wants complete control of the LA market. Owners could look at this as a good investment. I do not think the franchise, if run right, will fail. In a large market like this, blackouts are unlikely, if the team is competitive. LA is a massive market with potential that NO market in US without a team, can match. The NFL wants football in LA, eventually. I do agree, that they are using LA to get new venues across the league, to stabilize the franchises they have. However, if an owner is very unsuccessful in getting a new stadium in a particular market, I can see the NFL allowing a relocation. This could mean the Rams leave, unless a new venue is built here. Goodell has said over and over he does not want relocation and prefers that every market be stable and profitable. However, if an owner can prove significant losses and thorough due diligence getting nowhere, regarding a new stadium, I think Goodell would allow a team to move. This also saves the new owner from having to build a new venue with their own money. I'd guess if a stadium were built in LA, by the NFL, the franchise would pay rent and have a similar set up, like the Rams have here. Who knows though.... I think this stadium deal keeps the LA market in the control of the greedy owners and adds to the proverbial pot.

PostJul 23, 2014#18222014-07-23T12:33+00:00

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/colu ... e=comments

Nothing new, but thought I'd post anyway. . .

dweebe · PostJul 25, 2014#18232014-07-25T20:30+00:00

It's interesting to read through the comments on the NFL shop about the Michael Sam jersey.
http://www.nflshop.com/Michael_Sam_Gear ... o-top-link

Not really a sports enthusiast, but bought the jersey to support Michael Sam as well as the Rams for drafting the first out NFL athlete.

First, this is a statement jersey. I'm a life-long Philadelphia Eagles fan, but wanted the Michael Sam jersey for its historic value. I love sports jerseys anyway, but am particularly proud of this one.

Im a casual football fan, but really felt strongly about supporting both Michael Sam and the Rams....for their courage. M.Sam for coming out and the Rams for seeing him as a strong addition to the team and not getting worked up in the drama.

I really love this shirt. Mainly because I want to support the Rams for picking Michael Sam to play on their team. But it also looks good when I wear it and people comment on that fact. I applaud the Rams for their courage in picking Michael Sam and I will now follow the team and support them financially to the best of my ability

I know it was out of the ordinary to offer his jersey right after the draft, but considering the historic nature of it and the pride it gives was well worth it. I'm glad the jersey sold well, as a normal Bears fan (2 jerseys here) that's now adopted STL as a "second home

Sam bought me back to the NFL. Can't wait for the new season. I was a HS athlete and gay. I used to be a huge NFL fan until following one of the players strikes I lost interest. I am back now to watch Michael Sam. I will be a strong Rams supporter and fan due to their courage to draft Michael. I will proudly wear my Michael Sam Ram's jersey to show my support for both him and the team.

Pretty much all those quotes were from buyers outside of St. Louis.

PostJul 25, 2014#18242014-07-25T20:31+00:00

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... -for-bills

If you want to buy the Buffalo Bills, you'll need a lot of money and you have to promise not to move the team. Under terms of the Bills lease, the franchise isn't allowed to negotiate with any potential owner who might relocate the team before the 10-year lease is up at Ralph Wilson Stadium in 2022.

Apparently, Jon Bon Jovi's group either didn't read the contract or they don't think it applies to them because Bon Jovi's Toronto-based group recently conducted a feasibility study for buying an NFL franchise and building a stadium in Toronto, according to the Associated Press.

The study looked at three different locations for a possible Toronto stadium....

As Bills beat writer Tim Graham noted in April, moving to Toronto might not technically be relocation.

Toronto is within 90 miles of Buffalo and considered Buffalo's NFL territory. Moving the team there might not be considered relocation.

dbInSouthCity · PostJul 25, 2014#18252014-07-25T21:31+00:00

ok I can understand playing the technicality card if the other city wasn't in ANOTHER COUNTRY

St. Louis Rams

Choose Display Mode