urbanSTL

No pro team is ever safe from leaving their home city for another.
Im i really hope the Rams stay however the Rams will do whats best for the Rams as Saint.Louis will do whats best for Saint.Louis.
If they go i'll miss them dearly but we still have the Cardinals & Blues. I still hope someday we'll get a MLS team the folks in KC are already claiming they're soccer capitol

TheNewSaintLouis wrote:No pro team is ever safe from leaving their home city for another.
Im i really hope the Rams stay however the Rams will do whats best for the Rams as Saint.Louis will do whats best for Saint.Louis.
If they go i'll miss them dearly but we still have the Cardinals & Blues. I still hope someday we'll get a MLS team the folks in KC are already claiming they're soccer capitol

Yankees, Cubs, Cardinals...

Te only team safe is the GB Packers. They are the only city owned franchise in pro sports.

TheNewSaintLouis wrote:No pro team is ever safe from leaving their home city for another.
Im i really hope the Rams stay however the Rams will do whats best for the Rams as Saint.Louis will do whats best for Saint.Louis.
If they go i'll miss them dearly but we still have the Cardinals & Blues. I still hope someday we'll get a MLS team the folks in KC are already claiming they're soccer capitol

KC has definitely surpassed St. Louis as the soccer capital of Missouri, and probably the entire midwest; their ratings for the world cup far exceeded St. Louis's, they have a model MLS franchise and venue, etc. Soccer is just way bigger there.

As for the entire country, I would argue Seattle is probably the city in which soccer is most popular. The Sounders/CenturyLink Field is the standard.

St. Louis has not necessarily shown a history of doing what's best for St. Louis. Was it best for St. Louis to build the dome for the Rams in the first place? Probably not. Does that mean something like that will definitely happen again? No, but the precedent is there.

^regarding KC, they are quickly gaining momentum in soccer because, as you said, they have a venue, a model franchise and no real competition other than the Chiefs that play mostly in different seasons. The Royals don't really count. SKC has also won a title recently. It is no surprise that KC has passed in viewership. HOWEVER, I am not convinced KC has passed STL in youth soccer & amateur soccer. That will happen as long as we do not have pro soccer to build the sport here, but I am not sure it has happened just yet. If you recall, the Wizards were an awful franchise not that long ago. I recall Eric Wynalda on Fox Soccer Channel, just before the current owners purchased and rebranded SKC, say that the Wizards should move to St. Louis. Then came Sporting Park and SKC. It was like a total transformation.

If we only had a venue!!!!

Regarding STL doing what is right for STL.... The NIMBYS and close-minded people that continue to hold us back, have run the regional and state governments for too long. I think it will take some major change in the way our government works, before we see change in our region. See Austin TX. . . .
(Sorry, got off subject there for a sec)

Governor Nixon today on the Martin Kilcoyne show. Great all-around listen for anyone keyed in on big STL/Missouri issues. They start talking Rams/stadium issues around 6:30

http://www.ktrs.com/governor-jay-nixon- ... -naughton/

Frank Cusumano @Frank_Cusumano

“I hear the needle has moved a little in terms of talk of the #Rams staying in St. Louis. Still pretty quiet.” – Post Dispatch Jim Thomas.


29 Jul 14

According to Jim Thomas at least something is being discussed.

something to consider...the NFL doesn't just let a team move...you have to have like 3 years of rev drop ect and currently the Rams are building a winner and haven't shown anything that would indicate that they are tossing in the towel so that they can just move. Has there ever been a team that was winning and moved? I think the Rams are going to start winning this year and it will be hard to move a team that packs the house.

I'm not sure about the winning part, but the Baltimore Colts and Cleveland Browns had very loyal fanbases and the owners moved anyway, hence the reason the NFL immediately awarded new teams to those cities. I think in this case, LA has been bantered around for so long, it could happen. I think the NFL is all about money. LA brings money. I've heard all of the talk about the NFL loving the LA bargaining chip...etc...etc. They used it for a long time and only have a few more essential markets to threaten an LA move towards, before they have new(er) venues in most of their essential markets. I will say this. Kroenke is very popular within the owners 'club'. He is very powerful and the owners love have VERY rich billionaires in their club. I really believe, if he can make more money for the owners, they find a way to get him to LA, without as much red tape. As I mentioned, if he buys up the other land near his 60 acres, I think that blows the roof off of the story and further fuels the Rams to LA fire. This saga has way to many moving parts, many of which would lead you to believe he is leaving and just as many that make you think he's staying. We do know ONE big thing and even Kevin Demoff says this. The Rams will not be playing at the Dome the future. I perceive the future to be the next 5-10 years. 5 or less if there's no movement towards a new stadium here.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html

The Oakland Raiders have confirmed that owner Mark Davis recently met with city officials in San Antonio, but the team is mum on what was discussed.

On Tuesday, the San Antonio Express-News reported that on the weekend of July 18, Davis and some of his executives met with city leaders including then-mayor Julián Castro, the city manager and the president and chairman of the chamber of commerce, among others, according to the report....

(Mayor Castro just took a position a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development earlier this week.)

Interesting talk, but I bet Cowboys owner Jerry Jones will kill this pretty darn quickly.

My far fetch but unlikely scenario that I believe the NFL billionaire club would embrace if they could pull it off in the next 5-10 years. Four new stadiums in the US, one new market, expansion of two markets, and return to LA. That doesn't include the two expansion teams awarded

1) LA Rams, new stadium and the 2nd biggest TV market after New York if not mistaken. Had to put it out there.
2) San Antonio Raiders. The Raiders will get a new stadium and a market to finally call all its own.
3) Toronto Bills, OK, they are still really the Buffalo Bills but think is as more of a New England Patriots thing with a new stadium and a larger metro area
4) San Diego Chargers build a new stadium somewhere between LA and SD. Numbers wise, LA/San Diego is an all around bigger market than San Francisco Bay area. So this one way to make sure two teams are in Southern Cali while admitting that San Fran 49er's have pretty much come to dominate the Bay area.

and the two expansion teams

5) London Team, Russian billionaire owner. Why not let a Russian join the club as the NBA did and their money is conveniently parked in London.
6) Mexico City, Big metro market, Big latin American TV market and their is very much a loyal American football following south of the border

blzhrpmd2 wrote:^Even in potential good news, things remain cryptic. What exactly does that tweet mean?

In my opinion it means at least a meeting has been scheduled or someone from the St. Louis group has received a call back about the stadium situation. Just like the poster said earlier IF the Rams want to move they have to prove they have exhausted all of the option in Saint Louis.

I going to be honest, a team in L.A. sounds worst today then back in 1990s. Media is so easily obtainable today; making easier to be a fan of team not in your area. Los Angeles is city full of transplants. You could just DVR a game with the team you like and do all the things LA has to offer rather than going to see a bad Rams team. Rams and Raiders had trouble a attracting fans in 1990.

Another national media folk, asking if this will be the last training camp in STL. . .

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jas ... ly-defense

More camp observations: It's hard not to think this might be the Rams' last training camp in St. Louis. Lease-wise, the team is a free-agent at the end of the season, and the owner already owns a parcel of land in Los Angeles fit for a stadium. The rush to be the first team to go back to LA is heating up (Oakland, San Diego, among others), and with the sale price of the Bills only further indicating the worth of these franchise (the $2B purchase price for the flippin' LA Clippers did not go unnoticed in NFL circles), I truly believe 2015 is the year a team may actually get the ball rolling for that move. Considering the Rams used to be in SoCal, they'd have to be in that conversation.

If the Rams stay, the new stadium will be in Fenton or St.Charles

If it could be squeezed in north of Carr and south of Ashley, I think that could be great. Ideally, I think the dome update talks should have kept up. How 'bout Bloody Island? Looks pretty good to me. Stan should bite the bullet and just build it there with his own great fortune. LOL. Build it with the postcard views. I'm not sure what Illinois' plans are for Route 3 exactly but I like to think something could be worked out to the benefit of all.