urbanSTL

Its Fisher... Use to dislike the guy

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 308d5.html

I think Rams fans in St. Louis have to be concerned after the press conference yesterday. Silent Stan finally spoke and he didn’t say anything to convince me that he is keeping the team in STL or at least trying to do his best to work with the CVC, City and State. That would have been the most I could have asked, that he say he wants to stay here and hopes to work it out with the CVC. He was vague at best. I know he is a businessman and does not want to show his hand, but how can you energize a fan base with a great hire, then not reassure them, you will do your best to keep the team here in STL. By stating you have been involved with STL for almost 20 years and things will basically be worked on by his staff, is not enough.

I think much has to fall into place, for the move to take place. Obviously, LA has to get government approval for a stadium. Then the Rams would have to beat the Chargers, Raiders, Vikings, Jaguars or whoever else wants to run to LA. Considering the Rams can bolt in a few years, the timing is perfect for a move back to LA. Then you have the X-factor, London. I think the whole idea is ludicrous and far-fetched, but some think it is possible, considering Stan’s ties to London and the NFL’s desire to promote the sport globally. Best case scenario would be a MAJOR improvement to the DOME and the Rams staying here. Second best would be a major complex and stadium in Fenton or Chesterfield, where Stan owns property. I prefer Downtown and second, Fenton.

According to Dan Dierdorf, we will know more by this summer. He seems to feel Stan wants to stay here and the Dome can be improved enough to make it top 25%. I don’t know if that is possible, but who decides what defines the top 25%?? That gray area is going to make this a tough situation. It would be tough even if there were NO gray areas. The lease is plain and simply stupid and puts the CVC in a bad bargaining position. I think the authors at the time, just wanted to lure the team here and did whatever it took. Now, almost 20 years later, STL may pay the price. If we lose this team, we never see football here again. I know it is early, but Stan’s comments (or lack of comments) concern me greatly. He could make a boatload of money in a move to LA and increase the franchises value.

Many say, how can he need or want more money, but when you own as much as him, you never stop trying to make money because you can always buy more. I am sure Stan’s loyalty is only to himself and his business ventures. He may love Missouri, St. Louis and have many friends here, but he is going to do what is best for him, not anyone else. Time will tell if we are rooting for a lame duck franchise. I sure hope not. The Rams mean a lot to STL and it would hurt a City’s self-esteem and we already a complex in this town. It will also hurt some establishments in that area and leave us with this giant Dome,that will be empty 10 more times a year, if the Rams leave. On top of that, I will have to get rid of all of my Rams gear. Damn!

Alex Ihnen wrote:Sad to see the positive financial impact of game day lessened in downtown.

Maybe they could open the dome for that game and let fans watch it for free on the jumbo-trons to get people downtown and sell parking and concessions. And let people onto the field.

As a charter PSL holder, I was thinking this would be one of the games I would definitely like to see -- Tom Brady and company. Or, if I couldn't go, it might be one of the games I could sell for at least face value. Oh well.

I'm surprised but not shocked by this. The NFL wants a team in London, they want to expand globally because that's where the money is. They see the NBA and MLB and to a much lesser extent NHL and know that if they can get international fans, that's their avenue for financial growth. The Rams make sense as a trial for an exhbition team (totally unknown commidty, lousy on-field). The NFL can now see how a 'team' would go with a London following. Will London fans support a lousy team (hoping the Rams aren't terrible for 3 more years), or are they more interested in seeing variety and think of the NFL as more of a curiosity that they come out to see once a year. It's a lot harder to get support for a franchise than it is to see 'the circus' when it's in town once a year.

Moving the Rams to London though, as a result of this, makes little sense for the NFL. NFL franchises are worth more and more each year, regardless of where they play and how many fans they have. The NFL would be better served by expanding to LA, London, Toronto, and San Antonio (or worse case move the Raiders, add another LA franchise and drop Toronto), making a league of 36. All franchises draw well when the team wins - I wish NFL owners would figure that one out. No one wants to spend $1000 a year to be disappointed.

I've thought about this and I've read countless opinion pieces about this over the last few days. And try as I might, I cannot see any positives in this scenario.

Any goodwill and positive feelings that Stan Kroenke brought to the table with the hiring of Jeff Fisher was quickly thrown out the window with the London announcement. And no matter how one spins this development, it is still a slap in the face to St. Louis and the Rams fans that support this franchise even though it hasn't been deserving of that support for almost a decade now.

I didn't get upset with Kroenke when he wouldn't go beyond saying "We'll see" when he was asked about keeping the Rams in St. Louis long-term. Frankly that's more than I expected from "Silent Stan" in the first place. Of course he'll want maximum leverage as he enters into talks with the CVC about how to improve the Edward Jones Dome. I get that. What I don't understand is how the Rams benefit from surrendering a home game each year for the next three seasons. I hate to think of the downtown businesses that benefit from this and the ramifications it will have, even if it is just one less game each year. I'm not ready to join conspiracy theorists by suggesting this is one more step that indicates a prelude to relocation, especially to London, but I'm perplexed and disappointed by the move.

Any talk of increased publicity and exposure for the Rams franchise and the NFL is a whole is, as the Brits themselves would say, rubbish. They already have football anyway. We colonists refer to it as soccer. Our brand of football is no more than a curiosity to the British. I also don't see why the Rams couldn't have surrendered a road game at least 1-2 years in this agreement in lieu of a game at the EJD. Any trip that results in jet lag is a road game anyway. Finally, the Rams are going to be the Washington Generals playing against the Harlem Globetrotters each year, as they will face the Patriots, then the New Orleans Saints in 2013, and the Dallas Cowboys in 2014. Perhaps Brits will rediscover their love for the underdog, but that's assuming they can be bothered enough to care in the first place.

Even Dan Dierdorf described the idea of an NFL team in Europe as "lunacy". NFL Europe didn't work out so well, you might recall. I think the Rams will stay in the end, as relocation to Europe is highly impractical (and highly unlikely if the NFLPA has its say), and relocation to Los Angeles is unlikely (other teams are already ahead of the Rams in line to leave their current stadiums like the Chargers, Raiders, and perhaps the Jaguars and Vikings).

The CVC will have to spend more than it wants, and the Rams will have to settle for less than they want, but I think something can be worked out here.

The trouble is, by not even making the slightest gesture to indicate that he wants to work things out in St. Louis if at all possible, Kroenke is seriously testing the loyalty of fans that stood by the team through some of the worst football in the NFL over the last decade, and some of the worst football in NFL history for that matter. Even in their worst years before they left for Phoenix, the Cardinals were never this bad, nor was the franchise as inept even with Bill Bidwell in charge.

threeonefour wrote:I think the Rams will stay in the end, as relocation to Europe is highly impractical (and highly unlikely if the NFLPA has its say).

This. To begin with, the entire squads of the Niners, Raiders and Seahawks would tell the Players' Association to blow such an idea right out of the water. 10-hour flights? Even the 8-hour flights from the Midwest will draw serious objection from the players, not to even mention the coaches.

I truly think London is a pawn in the negotiations, but the Arsenal/Wembley connection is intriguing. I still think, without a doubt, LA is the biggest threat. The only obstacles to a move to LA after the lease expires: LA does not have a stadium just yet, other teams may beat the Rams to LA and the groups that want to build a stadium would like to own or partially own the NFL team that moves into their stadium. I think Stan likes to control his own destiny and not be tied to a facility or lease.
It is unfortunate that the Dome was built right when domes were going out of style. Right after the Dome was built, the new era of stadiums were built. You had new plush facilities go up in Seattle, Arizona, now Indy and Dallas. These stadiums are built for the long haul, unlike the Dome, which was built for the time (when talking about football). Had that Dome been built with a retractable roof, it would have been one amazing facility. It could have been used for football and other events, like NCAA regionals, conventions and Soccer games (outdoor/MLS).
Only time will tell if Stan is posturing or serious about moving to another City.
I just hate that it has come to this twice in 20 years. That has to be a huge factor in the lack of loyalty and the inability of our town to build a tradition that rivals other NFL cities. I guess putting a winning product on the field might help as well.

There is a report going around, that Stan made a deal with the National Park Service for purchase of the Gateway Arch. He plans to move it to L.A. where it will be still be called the Gateway to the West, but from the other direction -- China. Kevin Demoff re-assured Mayor Slay that this will actually strengthen the City and the riverfront, by removing one more impediment between downtown and the river. Now there will be a completely unobstructed view from the Old Courthouse over the planned bridge to, I guess, nowhere, and the grain elevator, and giant fountain. Kevin said rumors that the fountain may move to London were ridiculous, but then when asked if it was moving to Denver, he replied, "no comment."

That has to be a huge factor in the lack of loyalty and the inability of our town to build a tradition that rivals other NFL cities. I guess putting a winning product on the field might help as well.

You hit the nail on the head with the second sentence. I lived in New Orleans at the tail end of the Saints' dark years (if anyone remembers "The Year of The Two Billy Joes" you remember what I'm talking about). Commercials for the team essentially said, "hey come out to see the Rams and the 49ers play here!" The team literally couldn't give tickets away, and people talked about how crappy the Superdome was. They was even relocation talk.

Then the Saints started winning and New Orleans was a great place for the NFL. St. Louis is not the first fanbase to be beaten down by truly terrible football, nor will it be the last. But once a team starts winning things start to turn around pretty quickly, as we've seen here before.

St. Louis also isn't the first city to have LA relocation dangled as a threat. New Orleans, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, San Diego and Oakland have all been warned about the LA bogeyman. I would imagine you could add Jacksonville to this list if the team shows a loss for three years running as well. Indy caved and built a new stadium. Saints owner Tom Benson got a sweetheart deal to stay from the state after a particularly nasty relocation controversy. The Vikings are currently trying to get funding for a new stadium. It remains to be seen what the Rams, Raiders and Chargers will do.

There are also significant hurdles to overcome for a team to relocate to LA, the Farmers Stadium group would require Kroenke to sell a big chunk of the team, and the City of Industry Stadium group doesn't have the financing it would take to get a stadium built.

It isn't a coincidence that an announcement of the London series and Kroenke's sudden interest in owning the Dodgers all happened the week before the CVC presents their plan to improve the dome.

I'm not saying that eventually an owner won't call a city's bluff and make good on a threat to move to LA, just that owners have been using LA as leverage for awhile. If Stan gets what he wants in St. Louis, and the team starts winning, people will be happy and the LA relocation talk will be used to scare another fanbase.

I hope you are right and Stan is using all of this to get what he wants out of STL.
That is the best case scenario at this point. Stan has to know that STL and the CVC is limited. He will not get a new stadium funded by the City/County or State. He is not stupid. However, maybe he is fine with the Dome. I'm sure he recalls how great it was when the Greatest Show ruled football and the Dome was among the toughest places to play in the NFL. I think several things have to fall into place in LA or anywhere, in order
for Stan to move the Rams. I think he has to love his position right now. He is in the
drivers seat, just as a renter would be buying his/her first home right now. It favors
Stan and he knows it. I like the theory that all of this stuff is happening right before
the CVC negotiations, so Stan can gain leverage. This may mean he wants to stay, but
wants to make sure the CVC/City/County & State feel the heat. Let's hope they can work
it out. No matter is you like football or not, it is good for STL, it's people, morale and for businesses affected by the team.

Alex Ihnen wrote:"No matter is you like football or not, it is good for STL, it's people, morale and for businesses affected by the team."

I'll give you the last one.

Anyway, yes, new stadiums are going to be very difficult to come by anywhere in the country for a while, IMO. The league's expansion (now several years ago) means there's less competition for teams. Cities also look at the experience of Cincinnati and others and are reluctant to foot the bill.

That's why I think the Raiders, Chargers, and Vikings are more likely to relocate to Los Angeles than the Rams. Upgrading facilities in Oakland, San Diego, and Minneapolis is not a viable option as it may be here. The Chargers may leave San Diego after the upcoming season, Oakland may share a new facility with the 49ers in Santa Clara, and a new stadium is proposed for Minneapolis. But public funding for the Vikings' stadium will be a tough sell, just as it would be here. The difference is that we at least have a facility with the potential for upgrades. Again, the CVC may have to pay more than it would like for upgrades, and Kroenke may not get every amenity on his wish list, but there is at least a chance to make a good faith effort to keep the Rams in St. Louis long-term. So if Kroenke was serious about moving the Rams back to Los Angeles, he'd be in line behind the three aforementioned teams, and perhaps Tampa Bay and Jacksonville as well if the economics of their teams don't improve in the near term.

Other cities that were once considered ideal for relocating teams like San Antonio are very unlikely to commit to funding a new stadium. I mentioned San Antonio because it was once discussed as a possible destination for the Vikings and Saints, but it hasn't been on any NFL team's radar for a few years now.

If there's any question of the Rams playing somewhere besides downtown St. Louis, I still think the most likely alternative is intraregional relocation. Kroenke would have to dig deeper into his pockets to fund the stadium construction, but it might be possible to get infrastructure improvements made in Fenton (Chrysler plant site), St. Charles, or nearby Illinois suburbs.

Of course my preference is to see the Rams stay downtown, but I would much rather see them play in Fenton or Collinsville than to watch them on TV playing in Los Angeles or London.

The Rams make nearly $150 million in TV money before they play a single snap. The TV deal and merchandising make the team proftiable before a single expense is made. If the difference between profit and loss was 160,000 fans (the amount of 20k fans over 8 games), then the NFL has a worse business strategy than I thought. The Rams are worth an estimated $929 million - you don't get that kind of value for being a money-losing business. The only reason for a move to LA (or London) is to make MORE profit - not to be profitable. Unless STL gets 6 million more people overnight, nothing it does will stop an owner from chasing the proverbial pot of gold. That being said, I still don't think the Rams are moving. It doesn't serve the NFL's wider interests, and again, THERE'S NO NEW STADIUM ANYWHERE. So unless Kroenke wants to start paying his 53 man roster in Pounds Sterling, he'll keep them in STL.

gary kreie wrote:Since CVC and the Rams have to determine what they can do to put the Edward Jones Dome in the top quarter of stadiums in the NFL, I thought I'd try to determinge what catgories would determine that. When others rank stadiums, they always seem to add things about the fans or the team, such as electric atmosphere. Those things are pretty much all determined by how good the team is on the field, and how long they have played at a high level. Then they cite Lambeu and Foxboro. They have nothing to do with the actual physical facility -- but that is what CVC and the Rams must rank.
How about these for categories:
1. Average distance from each fan to the center of the field. Measure the distance from each seat in the stadium to the center of the field, add them up, and divided by the number of seats.
2. Physical Environment control for the Fans -- temperature, wind, light, average seat width and padding.
3. Number of concessions and restrooms per seat. Average distance of concessions and restrooms from each seat.
4. Number of club seats and luxury skyboxes.
5. Parking nearby -- average distance a fan must walk from the closest XX/2 parking spaces to the stadium. XX= number of seats in the stadium. (assume 2 fans per car)
6. Hotels nearby -- average distance a fan must walk from the closest XX/50 hotel rooms to the stadium. (assume 1/50 of fans use a hotel room.)
7. Restaurants nearby -- average distance a fan must walk from the closest XX/20 restaurants to the stadium. (assume 1/20 of fans use a restaurant.)
8. Tailgating nearby -- average distance a fan must walk from the closest XX/10 tailgateable spaces to the stadium. (assume 1/10 of fans tailgate.)
9. Stadium interior amenities -- Jumbo screens number and size, other electronic info, banners/honors, party zones/restaurants.

New article in the Post Dispatch this morning that makes some of the same points I was trying to make here. What are the categories for determining top tier?

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 09678.html

This piece had more info on that subject than I had seen before.

If fan creature comforts is at the top of the list, then a good lawyer could argue that a domed stadium beats out all non-domed stadiums right off the bat, since it can control temperature. The EJ Dome is the 6th newest of the of the 9 domed stadiums in the NFL. There are 31 stadiums total in the NFL.

I wonder if STL would have gotten the Rams, had they not agreed to such favorable terms for the Rams. Shaw might have been posturing and won the stare down contest. I wonder if Shaw saw the possibilities down the road. Did he see a move back to LA as a possibility. Why else would you include those lease provisions, unless he was not confindent that STL would support the Rams through lean years, which would allow the Rams to move for lack of support. I would have given them the lease provision, but added a clause that if ownership changed hands (even if a minority owner bought the majority), the lease was null and void or at least that part of the lease. That shows you how confident the CVC was that the DOME was top tier and how they felt the Rams would not move for decades. I think if the Rams had continued to be a "top tier" franchise on the field, we would not be worrying about whether or the Dome is "top tier". The support would be overwhelming. The NFL would have to either discourage the move or make sure (like Baltimore and Cleveland) that STL gets a new franchise. The fact that they have sucked for so long, gives the NFL an excuse and a reason to say STL is a bunch of fair weather fans. I can't stand when people say STL is a baseball town only. We are a sports town. If an owner puts a quality product on the field, we will support it. The Rams have not done that for years.

the central scrutinizer wrote:

gary kreie wrote:If fan creature comforts is at the top of the list, then a good lawyer could argue that a domed stadium beats out all non-domed stadiums right off the bat, since it can control temperature. The EJ Dome is the 6th newest of the of the 9 domed stadiums in the NFL. There are 31 stadiums total in the NFL.

A "good lawyer" would have never written such a vague lease.

ETA: I'm sure some very good lawyers wrote the lease. I'm quite sure they would have objected to that language, knowing it would cause problems down the road. However, their clients were desperate for a football team, and ultimately you do what your client wants.

Sounds like the Rams had bad lawyers too if the words are that non-specific.