urbanSTL

I think the success of the Rams season at the gate, hinges upon whether or not they win or play very well at Tampa. Cowboys fans will fill the Dome for us in 2 weeks, at least help. However, if the Rams get blown out this Sunday, considering the Dome was 10K or so short of a sellout on opening day, it could be VERY ugly (attendance-wise) the rest of the way.

I saw Channel 5 ran a story about the Rams last night, acting as if the Rams potential move, Stan's land buy in LA and other factors that could provoke a move, are new stories. It was pathetic to be honest. I saw NOTHING new, that hadn't been reported before, yet this was breaking news on KSDK. Then again, KSDK was the only station that decided it was a good idea to broadcast live, from Darren Wilson's driveway. If not for Anne Allred, I would not be watching at all.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/sports/nfl/ra ... /15312895/

^Don't get me wrong... I totally agree. I don't blame the fans for not showing up. The product is crap and has been for over 10 years. Terrible coaching, drafting, free agent signings, lack of community involvement (until recent years) and now bad PR for not making public statements regarding a desire to remain in St. Louis for the long haul. All of that has led to ONLY 10K empty seats. Pretty amazing. Now, that number will increase as the season progresses, if bad, but it is the organization's fault, not the fanbase.

Guess that's it.

Time to start packing the moving trucks.

Greatest St. Louis wrote:Guess that's it. Time to start packing the moving trucks.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/sports/nfl/ra ... /15312895/

Still think we win the next 2 games and things become mush rosier going into the bye week

Greatest St. Louis wrote:

wustl_eng wrote:An MLS team as replacement for the Rams is a pretty funny joke. An NBA team would be closer but still not equal

wabash wrote:That'd be like replacing the Cardinals with a Double-A baseball team. It would be a far cry from replacement.

What those guys said.

In other news, Oakland has reached an agreement with the Raiders for a new stadium: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... n-oakland/

Meanwhile, per Bernie Miklasz, here is the stadium situation locally: http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/vie ... &t=1050769

BernieM wrote:After talking with people who are wired into this thing locally...

They all believe, very strongly, that Nixon has to appoint someone to take charge of this. They are getting antsy because they have waited and waited and waited for Nixon. To no avail.

(And I'm sorry I can't divulge who "they" is. Sensitive at this time.)

The Gov. to this point has had no interest in taking charge of it.

I'm not ripping him for it; he's had more pressing concerns to deal with.

But this is a great time for him to dish off to someone that can coordinate the effort and get the ball rolling ... provided that there's interest in making an effort.

If we lose the Rams because of Governor Nixon's chronic lack of spine, I will be infuriated.

The state shouldn't pay to keep the Rams here. Wal-mart is one of the richest people in the nation. They can pay up or gtfo as far as I'm concerned.

The Rams departure is inevitable. I have tried to stick by this sackless team, but Sunday broke me. I might have to root for hometown team 1a (Panthers) full time. Cannot root for Washington. It'll be like rooting for the Rams again. Too dysfunctional.

dweebe wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:Still think we win the next 2 games and things become mush rosier going into the bye week

Have you seen the 8 games after the bye?

KC is awful....Philly can be beaten I still see 8 wins

TB
Dallas
KC
Oakland
Washington
Arizona (home)
New York
then 8th from @Arizona or @Philly

Maybe we should start rooting for the Jaguars. As soon as the Rams leave, we can start a 'Jags to St. Louis' thread and start a pipedream thread that will have to be around till at least 2029, when their lease is up.

On a serious note, I sure wish Shad Kahn would have purchased the Rams. He would have already assured us he is staying. He would be more patient with the CVC and likely work with them, like he is doing in JAX.

I know it is too early to chastise Stan because he has not moved. However, IMO, he is moving, if I had to guess. Now I could be shocked and the Rams stay, but I'd guess not at this point. I will point out to anyone saying that Stan is using LA like other cities, that WAY WAY WAY more signs point to LA here, than any other situation. More so that the Vikes, Bills, Raiders, Chargers or Jags. None of those owners bought land in LA, a house in LA, weaseled out of their lease or stayed COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY silent, like Silent Stan. I have to think if this move happens, that Stan and John Shaw knew all along, once he got Georgia out of the way, time will have passed that LA COULD be ready for the NFL. A good conspiracy theory is that Shaw and Kroenke had this plan all along, to move after Georgia is out of the way. They did give Stan a 1st right of refusal clause and a very favorable lease. The 'top tier' clause all but assured Stan his out, once Georgia died. Anyone with any inside scoop, had to know that our Dome would be a dump in 20 years, compared to the 'top tier'. I honestly believe this theory could be true. It is playing out before our eyes. At least it appears that way.

Has any city built a new outdoor stadium designed up front to support both soccer and football? Also, what things would lower the cost of a new stadium -- such as -- an existing pit like the one at Champ (I-270 at I-70). Could a stadium be put there with parking on the surrounding slope such that one could park at about the level of their seat, like the parking lot around Dodger Stadium in Chavez Ravine. Where is the closest ravine around here?

Here is one of the 12 new stadiums Brazil constructed for the World Cup for $400 million:



With big screen TVs in every home, are luxury skyboxes obsolete? What if we instead went the way of luxury movie theaters and made every seat stuffed and heated with in-seat snack and beverage service. Fewer seats, but make them all luxury. That's what movie theaters are doing to lure folks out of their family rooms. Any other outside the box thoughts for a new outdoor stadium?

gary kreie wrote:Has any city built a new outdoor stadium designed up front to support both soccer and football? Also, what things would lower the cost of a new stadium -- such as -- an existing pit like the one at Champ (I-270 at I-70). Could a stadium be put there with parking on the surrounding slope such that one could park at about the level of their seat, like the parking lot around Dodger Stadium in Chavez Ravine. Where is the closest ravine around here?

Here is one of the 12 new stadiums Brazil constructed for the World Cup for $400 million:



With big screen TVs in every home, are luxury skyboxes obsolete? What if we instead went the way of luxury movie theaters and made every seat stuffed and heated with in-seat snack and beverage service. Fewer seats, but make them all luxury. That's what movie theaters are doing to lure folks out of their family rooms. Any other outside the box thoughts for a new outdoor stadium?

CenturyLink Field in Seattle is widely considered to be by far the best venue in both MLS and NFL football.

It wasn't all that long ago that Roger Goodell was seriously mentioning expanding the number of NFL teams from 32 to 34 if the LA market could be re-entered. At the time he mentioned LA as the home of both new franchises because he 'didn't want to move any teams', but I think an alternate scenario might be better for all involved:

• · Build a new LA stadium capable of hosting two NFL teams
  · Move the Rams back to LA
  · Move the Raiders back to LA
  · Award STL and Oakland NFL expansion franchises.

The benefits:

• · LA gets 'their' teams back
  · Kroenke get his ROI; LA Rams instantly more valuable being back CA.
  · NFL gets its re-entry into the LA market.
  · NFL gets no black eyes from leaving other major (yes, even STL) markets.
  · Fan bases of two terribly under-performing franchises get a reboot; new team = new hopes and dreams even if an expansion team is starting over, so to speak.
  · In STL, the new franchise = no more existing year-to-year lease. City and the NFL get a do-over. The new team could still build a new stadium and lease the Jones Dome (a less janky lease, mind you) until it's complete.
  · STL, Oakland fans (as well as their respective regional governments) are no longer jerked around by the threat of a team leaving. Good-faith negotiations could occur again in earnest.
  · New franchise owner has a chance to build a franchise that will be more valuable than the sorry franchises leaving OAK and STL. Rising tide lifts all boats, so to speak.

It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's tenable.

I'm a football fan and a Rams fan. But if LA wants the Rams back then let 'em have them. If STL remains an NFL city I don't care what team it is in the NFL; give me the Stallions v2.0 or Mudskippers or whatever. I'll root for the local 53.

-RBB

gary kreie wrote:
Here is one of the 12 new stadiums Brazil constructed for the World Cup for $400 million:

cheap labor, cheap materials...

^^I like that scenario, but the NFL does not care about STL or OAK enough to give us another shot. I think if the Rams leave, we are done. Our only hope MIGHT be in 2029, when the Jags lease is up and if the situation is bad, they might consider moving. By then, the relocation fee might be $3 Billion, who knows. I guess we better start saving! I think the Jags will eventually move, but by then, London might be a real option. STL will likely be an NFL flyover city. I guess STL will adopt the Chiefs again, like we did when we lost the Big Red. Sucks!

rbb wrote: · STL, Oakland fans (as well as their respective regional governments) are no longer jerked around by the threat of a team leaving. Good-faith negotiations could occur again in earnest.

I don't think the threat of team leaving will ever definitely not be levied at any city that doesn't pony up for stadium funds, it's not just the LA thing. I mean, the Football Cardinals weren't agitating to go back to Chicago when we lost them.

MarkHaversham wrote:

rbb wrote: · STL, Oakland fans (as well as their respective regional governments) are no longer jerked around by the threat of a team leaving. Good-faith negotiations could occur again in earnest.

I don't think the threat of team leaving will ever definitely not be levied at any city that doesn't pony up for stadium funds, it's not just the LA thing. I mean, the Football Cardinals weren't agitating to go back to Chicago when we lost them.

In that scenario I was going on the assumption that the new team would be awarded to STL. It's a tough thing to threaten to move a team that was just awarded a spot in the city and hasn't played a game yet. Sure they could, but they'd be arguing from a position of weakness. I'm just not sure how effective such a tactic would be.

That said, if that did occur there'd likely be have been some concessions in the first place to retain an NFL presence at all. Perhaps an agreement of some sort with the league to provide funds, infrastructure, tax breaks/deferrals, etc., to the new team in their effort to build a stadium.

-RBB