dredger wrote:A billion dollar stadium in St. Louis won't make the Rams more valuable nor will 7 days of parking revenues be worth much to a billionaire. However, getting a shot at developing a piece of downtown might be the trick.
If he was interested in developing a piece of downtown he would have bought the Bottle District site.
Understand and Stan K could have easily bought outright.
But a couple of items you might be able to clarify for me. First, I understand that the previous developers are still part of it and that might be part of the reason McKee was able to swing a deal. In other words, it made sense on the tax credit side to include the Bottleworks into Northside proposal as long as Missouri representatives won't make any significant changes. In other word, would the deal have happened if this past summer special session accomplished major tax credit reform? Second, Does THF - Stan K's development company, own their properties or just develop them? Always got an impression of a shell game when it came to most of Stan K's riches in Real Estate. In that case, their is still room for Stan K and wouldn't be surprise at the end of day if his company is some how involved in any mixed use proposal
I'm just really impressed that the CVC found an A/E firm that could figure out how to keep the sun shining directly on the field no matter what time of day the game is played.
And I always wondered about this, so I tried to find some data. The top 3, and 4 of the top 10 (I don't know what to do with Riverside-San Bernadino) fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the U.S. have no professional sports teams.
Like Alex and some others in this thread, I'd rather have the Rams around than have them leave. But first of all, to be successful in any negotiation, you have to be able to walk away from the table. I don't think anyone who's arguing passionately for keeping the Rams has drawn the line as to when that point occurs.
The other interesting comparison (and I think this works for the Arch project as well) might be to compare the relative ROIs on some number of millions spent on a stadium vs. the same number of millions put into an angel fund similar to the folks last week who were talking about $50,000 seed-money grants for entrepreneurs. But that discussion never even comes up, because no one views them as potential alternate uses for the same dollars.
Would have to say though, Austin and Raleigh/Durham both are collegiate cities. And I would argue (especially for Texas) that those opperate as essentially professional teams (Either way, the point is the same, there are legitimate sports for fans to go to events). Your third, Las vegas, might have incredibly diff pop figure from 2009-2010, but in any event, is banned from having sports teams due to their relationship with gambling. In this case as well, the public is clamoring for sports teams and are constantly trying to get teams. (NBA, MLB, Etc.)
LOVE the idea of the Angel fund and if that was a LEGITIMATE option would choose that over the Rams in a heartbeat. Good idea Joe.
dredger wrote:
But a couple of items you might be able to clarify for me. First, I understand that the previous developers are still part of it and that might be part of the reason McKee was able to swing a deal. In other words, it made sense on the tax credit side to include the Bottleworks into Northside proposal as long as Missouri representatives won't make any significant changes. In other word, would the deal have happened if this past summer special session accomplished major tax credit reform? Second, Does THF - Stan K's development company, own their properties or just develop them? Always got an impression of a shell game when it came to most of Stan K's riches in Real Estate. In that case, their is still room for Stan K and wouldn't be surprise at the end of day if his company is some how involved in any mixed use proposal
I am not privy to the intricacies of Mr. Kroenke's or Mr. Mckee's real estate dealings so I can't really clarify my previous statement. Who knows? Something might be in play that we don't know about.
I just don't think Kroenke is that interested in St. Louis. My prediction would be that if he gets a Rams move to LA deal done before the start of the season, he will just buy himself out of the lease. As I wrote in my piece on Count On Downtown yesterday, once the fans know the Rams will leave, who's going to support the team for three more years? The Rams might have to play a season or two in the LA coliseum.
Only if the LA deal falls through, or negotiations take much longer, or another team moves there first, the Rams will probably stay here, which also means that the CVC's proposal to get the dome "top tier" really doesn't mean that much. Of course, Kroenke will still try to squeeze the most out of it.
Personally, I am not a Rams fan but I would like St. Louis to stay an NFL city. As you know, I would like to see the dome upgraded, as well as an expansion of the Convention Center. Maybe the CVC should pick up the phone and start negotiations with Mr. Shahid Kahn, the new owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars (remember him?) . Call it plan B.
I've got a few opinions I'll throw out there for the heck of it. I've been out of touch for a while on these boards so I can't really sit here and talk about how much we're spending on this or that or the other, but regardless...
- I agree with everyone (thus far) on here - we, as a metropolitan area, need to do our best to keep the Rams in St Louis. As with others, I agree that sports teams DO mean something to the fabric of a city. I don't think any company looking to relocate to St Louis is going to see "They have the Rams! Let's go!" But, I do think they look at St Louis, currently, as a 3 sport city. Don't you think civic pride increased when Oklahoma City got an NBA team? Don't you think Columbus having an NHL team means a lot to those people there? Surely this makes a difference for a company considering a relocation. We're talking about 7-8 games per year, but we're also talking about tens of thousands of dollars in merchandise sales throughout the metro.
- I agree with Alex I as well - this is our tax dollars. If they came out tomorrow and said the Rams can stay in St Louis, we just have to increase sales tax by 5% - is that REALLY worth it? I bet it's not worth it to the retailers in the city that realize their customers would rather go to the county and save 5% on all of their purchases. A $200 grocery bill would be cut by $10 if they went an extra 2 miles into Shrewsbury to shop. Now, I know this is not the likely scenario, its just an example.
-- I hate the argument "Big whoop, what's half a percent? Who cares!" 10 half percents = 5%.
-- I hate the argument that we should do whatever it takes, no matter what, to keep the Rams here - just like I hated the argument for keeping Pujols in St Louis. People looked at Pujols/Cardinals with emotion rather than their brains. "Pay him the $30m!" Really? Pay him $30m for 10 years at the sake of winning seasons for the last 5 years of his contract because they can't afford anybody worth their weight in salt?
- I cannot stand when people say "They suck! Let them go!" What about when they don't suck? If you don't watch them this year and want them to move because they suck, then in a few years when they don't, you better not watch them then, either...and certainly don't argue for them staying in St Louis. The Cardinals haven't always been great. Sure, they are a storied franchise and they've been here forever, but they had to start somewhere. How different would St Louis be if the Cardinals moved after 10 years in St Louis because people who can't see past their noses said "LET THEM GO!" because they weren't worth a crap?
I'm not saying by any stretch that these records are anything like the Rams past few abysmal years, but I am saying that making the argument that we shouldn't care if they leave because they suck right now is really, really stupid.
One last point - to the people who argue that no tax dollars should be used to keep the Rams here (ala Tea Party, no doubt)...Yes, I am an unapologetic conservative, and in many cases I will agree with the Tea Party, but at some point, we have to think like business people. "NO NEW TAXES! I DONT WUNT MAH TACKSES PAY'N FER A DADGUM FUTBALL TEEM!" That's BS. If we don't offer some incentive for staying here, someone else will. Just like when a business wants tax incentives to stay in St Louis. If they are serious about it, another city would gladly take 500 new jobs to get a new company to move to town - and that's why we should try to keep business, even if that business is a sports team, in town.
For those of you that haven't seen yet, Stan K has got to be absolutely PISSED this morning along with about 6 other NFL owners.
Roger Goodell (NFL comish) came out and said that if the NFL is going to enter the LA market it is "very probable" the league will expand to 34 teams to accomplish this. This is due to the fact that he says the league "Doesn't want to move any of our teams."
This is phenomenal news for the Rams remaining in StL (obviously). If any league can support expansion right now, it is the NFL, and it appears as though they have chosen to go that route with regards to the LA market.
newstl2020 wrote:For those of you that haven't seen yet, Stan K has got to be absolutely PISSED this morning along with about 6 other NFL owners.
Roger Goodell (NFL comish) came out and said that if the NFL is going to enter the LA market it is "very probable" the league will expand to 34 teams to accomplish this. This is due to the fact that he says the league "Doesn't want to move any of our teams."
This is phenomenal news for the Rams remaining in StL (obviously). If any league can support expansion right now, it is the NFL, and it appears as though they have chosen to go that route with regards to the LA market.
I read that, too. But Rog says he doesnt want to move any teams. Doesn't mean he won't. Just that in a perfect world, no one moves.
However, this is signaling (at least IMO) that there is a strong preference to retain the current markets within the league office. Goodell by no means had to say either of the above, yet he came out and did, which imo signals him and the league beggining to take a stance with regards to the LA market. I think this bodes well.
On a side note, I really wish we can switch divisions into the NFC North at some point. Detroit, GB, Chi, and MN would greatly increase the level of fan participation in StL. Being in the West as we are currently is a HUGE handicap.
Expansion makes some sense for the other NFL owners. Why should they let only one owner have the LA windfall? Houston had to pay a $700 million expansion fee, I believe. Who knows what an LA owner would need to pay. (Or what they would demand from Stan to move.) And does it help the NFL product to have another round of cities stealing each others teams?
I suppose the Rams could still threaten to move to London or somewhere else. What is the biggest US metro area without an NFL team? Looks like Portland, San Antonio, Las Vegas, and Orlando -- all smaller than St. Louis.
gb minn det chi STL
sf sea az LA
phi dal wash ny
no car tampa atl
ne ny mia buf
den sd oak kc LA
hou ten jack ind
bal pit cin clev
gary kreie wrote:Expansion makes some sense for the other NFL owners. Why should they let only one owner have the LA windfall? Houston had to pay a $700 million expansion fee, I believe. Who knows what an LA owner would need to pay. (Or what they would demand from Stan to move.) And does it help the NFL product to have another round of cities stealing each others teams?
I suppose the Rams could still threaten to move to London or somewhere else. What is the biggest US metro area without an NFL team? Looks like Portland, San Antonio, Las Vegas, and Orlando -- all smaller than St. Louis.
gb minn det chi STL
sf sea az LA
phi dal wash ny
no car tampa atl
ne ny mia buf
den sd oak kc LA
hou ten jack ind
bal pit cin clev
Have to agree, a coupld of owners like Stan K would come out revenue and team value wise if they can get their team to LA with the right deal. Chargers and Vikings among the others. Kahn probably doesn't have enough money or strength to make it happen for the Jags. But Kahn was probably looking at a Ram's move back and a St Louis stadium upgrade for a Jaguars move.
Up in the air, I think any league needs to shake up once in a while and wonder if NFL is going to hurt its brand at end of day. Having more is not necessarily a better deal for certain business models in my opinion. Their simply comes a point where some cities won't support a franchise. Jacksonville is one such place for the NFL. I would argue that NHL needs to get out of some southern markets and baseball did itself some good by at least getting one team out of Canada and NBA desperately needs to drop a team or two as well as shorten its playoff season outright. Both NBA and NHL would do itself some good from a business prespective if it could find more arena combo's for mid size markets such as Denver - Avalanche/Nuggest.
Hopefully it will be home to the Raider's also. As a new resident to the Bay Area it seems to be a no-brainer to have both 49er's/Raiders in same stadium if your going to spend a billion dollars. As far as San Fran, they will tear down candlestick and have instant waterfront property that will be built on without losing its team identity.
As far as Oakland community, it might the first of one of two pro teams moving and perception of a major loss. They will lose a NBA team across the Bay in near future in my opinion. The owner and developers are pushing to see a new arena going up near AT&T Park - Giants Baseball stadium (I also see it as a play for the San Jose sharks in the long run). However, if Oakland play its cards right they will have a lot of space around a BART station on transit line that is making its march to San Jose. In other words, still a great location for a new Oakland A's baseball only stadium as well as residential/mixed use development with great transit access that will be much more affordable then anything that is going to be built on Candlestick grounds.
Unfortunately I'm not sure it matters what Goodell wants as far as teams moving. There was a team wanting to move years ago, the NFL owners all voted to stop it, but the owners sued and it was ruled by the courts that they could not be stopped from moving. Don't remember the case, but it happened, unfortunately.
Wembley Stadium, where the Rams and Patriots would play. This reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on it. Notice the sunlight coming in around the rim.
Jones Dome came in number 6. The guy seemed to be spot on...
NFL stadiums should not be downtown. They get lost among the buildings, create too much congestion, and require (shudder) parking structures. What’s wrong with parking structures? Two things. They take about seven months to get out of after a game, but more importantly, you can’t tailgate in them. And taking the tailgating out of football is like taking the oxygen out of my air.
In case you couldn’t infer, Edward Jones Dome is in downtown St. Louis. To its credit, it was built with the relocation of the Rams in mind in 1995, so the site lines are fine and there aren’t any weird trash bag-like materials hiding unsightly equipment. But that’s as much credit as this place deserves.
In last season’s Sports Illustrated assessment of all 32 NFL stadiums, Edward Jones Dome came in 32nd. I feel it should somehow be ranked lower than that. Like 45th at best. What’s amazing is how quickly this stadium became hated. Built only 15 years ago, this is probably a testament to how poor the planning of this stadium was.
This dome demonstrates that the only thing worse than not trying to make a dome look good is TRYING to make a dome look good. Seeing a monstrous dome clad in red brick makes the whole design look schizophrenic by creating a striking difference between the street-level view of the dome and the industrial-looking aerial view.
Perhaps the worst thing about this dome is simply the fact that there is NOTHING notable in this stadium. It’s not even awful in an interesting way. It’s just awful, which seems to be a recurring theme in domed stadiums. I did not take into account the crappy teams playing inside these listed venues, but it’s pretty damn difficult to ignore the suckitude of the St. Louis Rams.
I disagree. This guy is hung up on a lot of things outside the stadium, first of all, and the only thing he doesn't like inside the stadium is the team itself, which is the Rams responsibility.
With regard to tailgating -- there is plenty of surface parking all over downtown and hence plenty of opportunities to tailgate if you want to. But if you'd rather eat at Fridays or the Casino sports bar before the game, you can do that too in St. Louis. In non-downtown stadiums, your choices are 1) tailgating, or 2) eat in the stadium and pay their high prices.
Inside the dome, he says there is nothing notable in the stadium. I guess he's looking for a pirate ship or something. That's cool the first time you walk in the stadium, but after that who cares? The dome has more seats closer to the center of the field that any stadium in the NFL, I suspect.
Believe it or not, some people come to the stadium to see a football game. As far as fan creature comforts, how can you beat a place that can control temperature, wind, rain, and light to try to let fans concentrate on the game. I went to a game in KC. It rained the whole time. Our seats happened to be under the overhang and other people from exposed seats were sitting in our seats. We just left them there and sat in someone else's seats. Most people had left by halftime anyway.
I like what CVC proposed. It doesn't do much for my long time season tickets -- lower bowl corner. But if it keeps the team here, I don't care to pay higher prices to get -- what? More surface parking?
I agree Gary...sometimes I think that people hate the dome because people hate the dome...there was little to none of this talk when the rams were playing in super bowls...I can remember how intimidating the dark cavernous dome used to feel and be...
It seems that unless you create an artificial intersection between downtown buildings and the stadium, there isn't any cool points which seem to be what drives the critics...I mean when the author above discounts superb sight lines as an afterthought, he shows a bias to confirm what he already believes imo...
I really liked the initial proposal, and I hope to see new seats when its all said and done. I understand the gripe about the skywalk but I don't think its as bad as St Louis Centre's, broadway isn't washington - not with the dome and I-70.
SOP for the top clubs the past several years. The question always is, do they bring the full side? Maybe he'll bring them here someday, if they can look past the plastic grass.
(He owns a "football" team, not a "futbol" team, unless London has moved to South America recently)
Actually, if you know anything about the EPL, many of their players are from all over the place and say futbol, even though it is pronounced football in England. Just watch the EPL review show on Fox. Also, using 'futbol' worked well in the comment....
The fact that Stan is taking the Rams to London, begs the question, '
why not bring Arsenal to the midwest?' We are losing regular season home games. Why not give us a stop on the Arsenal summer tour. He'd have no excuse if we had a nice stadium like KC. He may not be able to bring them here for a game, but a camp or promo stop would be just fine.
