St. Louis Rams

DogtownBnR · PostFeb 14, 2012#6512012-02-14T16:18+00:00

The NFL would put them in an armor knight's suit or play flag football before it folds.
They print money. No lawsuits are going to put that juggernaut out of biz. I just
don't buy that. If anything, it will become a play at your own risk situaion.
Every player whether it be football, hockey or soccer, knows the risks are there.
I don't believe the NFL or NHL etc.. should be at fault. It is a risk-reward
situation. A player knows what they are signing up for. If you survive, the
payoff is enormous. If you don't, well, you don't.

PS_ Let's stay on the topic of the Rams or start a new thread...
We are getting way off track....

9ine Runner · PostFeb 14, 2012#6522012-02-14T22:13+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:http://jacksonville.com/sports/football ... -president

I think this story is of note. Even though there is ZERO indication that the Rams or the Jags are moving, if the Rams do move, you have a St. Louis guy running the Jags and a Midwest guy owing the team. This is good news for St. Louis, more so as a
Plan B, if the Rams move. It is not a secret that the Jags are failing in
Jacksonville, a truly small market, with a small population and less
corporate support. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it almost seems as if
everything is playing out perfectly for the NFL. The Rams have perfect timing
to get back to LA in 3 years and outside of the relocation fees, which are
significant, the Jags could fill the void in St. Louis. It will be very
interesting to see how this plays out over the next 3-5 years. I wonder what
the NFL will look like in 20 years.... remains to be seen.

http://www.footballphds.com/2011/11/30/ ... angeles-2/

This past summer, we published our widely circulated Definitive NFL Stadium Guide, which included information on the Jaguars' lease with EverBank Field / City of Jacksonville. In the guide, we estimated that if the Jaguars broke the lease, the team would have to pay between $60-80 million to EverBank Field / City of Jacksonville.

We also noted that the Jaguars can only break their lease without fault if a judge determines that the City of Jacksonville has not properly maintained the stadium or if the judge determines that the team has lost money for three consecutive seasons. And neither has been the case for the Jaguars.

Additionally, the NFL has policies that a team cannot relocate if it would cause a breach of the team's current lease. Accordingly, the Jaguars would have to negotiate a settlement with EverBank Field / City of Jacksonville to terminate the lease early in order to relocate. We estimate that such a settlement would be at least $40 million.

I see the connections with Khan, Gabbert, and Lamping but its just a coincidence. I don't believe the former owner of the Jaguars drafted Gabbert all while planning to sell the team to Khan. And Lamping is just a smart hire.

Its nice to have a backup plan, and the Jaguars may potentially be, but I think we'll wind up keeping the Rams.

shadrach · PostFeb 14, 2012#6532012-02-14T23:24+00:00

to add to all the Jax speculation—it would put St. Louis in the AFC South.

Just weird for STL to be in the AFC.
And being in the South division is eerily coincidental with Mizzou moving to SEC.

BTW, About three years ago my brothers in LA were speculating over a Rams/Jaguars shuffle.
I thought it was crazy talk. Still is. Kind of. Maybe.

DogtownBnR · PostFeb 15, 2012#6542012-02-15T13:58+00:00

Arch_genesis wrote:

Its nice to have a backup plan, and the Jaguars may potentially be, but I think we'll wind up keeping the Rams.

I sure hope that you are right. I am not so sure. Jim Thomas said yesterday that he would bet a million bucks that Stan rejects the CVC's upgrades. Those were well
over 100 mill. I don't know that they could get that much public funding, much less
any more money than that. I am not at all convinced Stan doesn't have his eyes on LA. I dream of the day he is at a podium announcing a LONG term deal has been reached and Stan
saying how he planned on staying all along, but had to do what was best for the
Rams. Regarding Lamping, I agree, smart hire, but I truly believe that it is in
the very back of his mind, that this franchise, at SOME point, could end up in
St. Louis, if the Rams bolt. Maybe not until 2029 or whatever. The article states that the NFL needs to approve any move and it would be tough, based upon NFL bylaws. I think
the NFL will do anything it wants, including moving a franchise out of a bad market.
Regarding the fees, the franchise, new city/state and NFL can assist, if they really want to move. If there is a will there is a way. Regarding the proof that the franchise has lost money 3 years in a row, just continue on the same path and the JAX fans will continue to stay away. That should not be an issue. I do think the NFL knows they picked a bad market in JAX and would have to be smart enough to know that the team needs to be moved. I think they banked on the population boom to continue in the south. JAX is a true "small market", is in college football country and does not have a large corporate base. I'm sure the NFL would like to get that franchise out of there and will be less likely to fight a move, depending on where they are going. I don't believe ANY lease is ironclad. Money, lawyers and public backlash can break a tough lease.

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 15, 2012#6552012-02-15T17:14+00:00

Of course the Rams will reject the CVC's first offer. The CVC certainly knows this. They didn't completely low-ball the opening offer, but they understand it's going to be a negotiation and likely end up in arbitration.

The CVC didn't offer $100M+, but $60M and nearly all from increased fees on parking, restructuring stadium debt, and forgiving the amusement tax on tickets sales.

DogtownBnR · PostFeb 15, 2012#6562012-02-15T17:55+00:00

I do not feel that the Rams will even come close to paying for half of those improvements. Therefore, the $100 million plus in improvements will likely fall
on the shoulders of the taxpayers, assuming a deal can be struck. Stan will put in as little as possible, considering he does not own the building and has no reason to stay long term. He has all of the chips. The Dome is what it is and he can bolt. I can't imagine, no matter what the parameters are, that the CVC could convince anyone that the Dome is in the top tier of NFL stadiums. I know some will argue, what are the things that they look at when considering top tier.. I still don't see the CVC winning that uphill battle and I don't see an arbitrator agreeing with the CVC. However, if Stan truly wants to stay and he is posturing for the best deal, he may dump some of his money into the facility. I'm just surprised that the CVC started by offering so much, if they expect the process to be a long, drawn out negotiation. Maybe they should have low-balled him. I guess they wanted to show that they are coming to the table in good faith. All I know is that Stan is playing it perfectly and the CVC would have to be clueless to think they he does not hold all of the cards. Even though London is not ideal, he has a football ready venue in one of the biggest cities in the world to use as leverage, in case anyone wants to say "LA doesn't even have a stadium yet".

The CVC didn't offer $100M+, but $60M and nearly all from increased fees on parking, restructuring stadium debt, and forgiving the amusement tax on tickets sales.

Unfortunately, that pales in comparison to the increased revenue and franchise value, Stan would gain in moving to a market like LA or London.

debaliviere · PostFeb 15, 2012#6572012-02-15T20:03+00:00

arch_genesis wrote:Additionally, the NFL has policies that a team cannot relocate if it would cause a breach of the team's current lease. Accordingly, the Jaguars would have to negotiate a settlement with EverBank Field / City of Jacksonville to terminate the lease early in order to relocate. We estimate that such a settlement would be at least $40 million.

PSLs could be used to cover the settlement. I have to think there would be some sort of PSL instituted in order for STL to lure another franchise.

dredger · PostFeb 18, 2012#6582012-02-18T07:15+00:00

Doubt you will see this happen in St. Louis and will be surprised if it does happen for the Vikings. Just can't see a mid market pulling off anything close to a billion dollar stadium. My gut feeling is Stan the man will ask for a new roof somehow on top of what is being proposed. Unfortunately, he won't ask for I-70 in front of the dome to go away

http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... page=1&c=y

Minneapolis, the state and the Minnesota Vikings have reached a tentative agreement on a new, $975 million stadium on a site at or near the Metrodome and on how to divide the costs, multiple sources said Friday.

Richard Sennott, Star Tribune

rawest1 · PostFeb 18, 2012#6592012-02-18T12:09+00:00

dredger wrote:Doubt you will see this happen in St. Louis and will be surprised if it does happen for the Vikings. Just can't see a mid market pulling off anything close to a billion dollar stadium. My gut feeling is Stan the man will ask for a new roof somehow on top of what is being proposed. Unfortunately, he won't ask for I-70 in front of the dome to go away

http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... page=1&c=y

Minneapolis, the state and the Minnesota Vikings have reached a tentative agreement on a new, $975 million stadium on a site at or near the Metrodome and on how to divide the costs, multiple sources said Friday.

Richard Sennott, Star Tribune

This is probably good news for people who want the Rams to stay in St. Louis.

The Vikings are a team whose dome is older and in far worse shape (see: roof collapsing when it snows) and whose lease ran out this year. They were literally free to go wherever (with league approval) because their lease has expired. The same L.A. proposals that would lure the Rams in three years could have lured the Vikings this year. But the Vikings seem to have done everything they can to make it work in Minneapolis. If L.A. is such an attractive gold-mine, you'd think the Vikings would have looked at them more seriously, but they aren't.

I don't think the Rams will, either.

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostFeb 18, 2012#6602012-02-18T14:58+00:00

rawest1 wrote:
dredger wrote: Minneapolis, the state and the Minnesota Vikings have reached a tentative agreement on a new, $975 million stadium on a site at or near the Metrodome and on how to divide the costs, multiple sources said Friday.

Richard Sennott, Star Tribune
This is probably good news for people who want the Rams to stay in St. Louis.

The Vikings are a team whose dome is older and in far worse shape (see: roof collapsing when it snows) and whose lease ran out this year. They were literally free to go wherever (with league approval) because their lease has expired. The same L.A. proposals that would lure the Rams in three years could have lured the Vikings this year. But the Vikings seem to have done everything they can to make it work in Minneapolis. If L.A. is such an attractive gold-mine, you'd think the Vikings would have looked at them more seriously, but they aren't.

I don't think the Rams will, either.

Conversely, this new stadium will be one less stadium the EJ Dome was ahead of. I would assume as a brand new $.975 Billion stadium, it would qualify for top 25% in the league, putting it that much more difficult for the EJ Dome to break into that realm. Also, with one less tentative team for LA to land, the LA sides might sweeten their deal to the remaining teams they still consider in play. If Stan/the Rams were even slightly on the fence before this announcement, I don't see how anyone could see this as a positive for keeping the Rams in STL.

gary kreie · PostFeb 18, 2012#6612012-02-18T19:03+00:00

Everything I read says the Vikes would play in the Metrodome through 2015, and would move to the new stadium in 2016. So I don't think the new stadium can count in the upper tier calculation in 2015.

Even though a deal has been struck, most reports say the vote by the state legislature to approve its over $300 million share is not a sure thing in an election year.

Alex Ihnen · PostFeb 18, 2012#6622012-02-18T20:08+00:00

There's a stipulation in the lease about stadiums proposed near the deadline - that is, this new stadium won't count against the EJ Dome and the top tier issue. It will be interesting to see the details, but I'm really surprised that Minnesota/Minneapolis is coming up with $1B for a new stadium. Whether it counts against top tier or not, I can't see this as a good thing for the Rams. If I'm Kroenke I'm looking at another team getting an incredible stadium with huge state support. MO isn't/cant do that. And you're right, it's one less team that LA could lure.

dredger · PostMar 01, 2012#6632012-03-01T17:20+00:00

No surprises at end of first quarter as reported by biz journal, onto 2nd quarter. But it does beg the question with the active discussion on the raised section of I-70 downtown. Will RAMS propose it on May 1st?

Rams reject CVC's $124 million Dome upgrade plan

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... -dome.html

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 01, 2012#6642012-03-01T17:28+00:00

^ The Rams will not propose I-70 removal.

the central scrutinizer · PostMar 01, 2012#6652012-03-01T18:52+00:00

I can't imagine they care one way or the other about I-70.

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 01, 2012#6662012-03-01T20:30+00:00

the central scrutinizer wrote:I can't imagine they care one way or the other about I-70.

My guess is that they would see the benefit of it not being there, but that's a ways from endorsing it, which is a ways from publicly stating so.

dredger · PostMar 01, 2012#6672012-03-01T21:27+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:
the central scrutinizer wrote:I can't imagine they care one way or the other about I-70.
My guess is that they would see the benefit of it not being there, but that's a ways from endorsing it, which is a ways from publicly stating so.

Beg to differ on my wishful thinking. Their is very few ways RAMS can substantially increase revenues or value of the team in my opinion. However, they might look at developable property as an alternative and the best way is to replace the raised section of I-70

Beyond that, What do you think the Rams proposal will entail -

1) New Stadium - something to delay the process, leverage for a LA move or not, so on
2) Removable Roof as what Count proposed on his blogspot
3) Parking revenues - It would terrible use of land but tearing down I-70 essentially give RAMS space for their own parking/tail gating revenues until the develop higher use.

rawest1 · PostMar 02, 2012#6682012-03-02T14:56+00:00

Here's Bernie Miklasz's take on what's going on, based on his own sources and speculations:

On his radio show a couple weeks ago he said "Kroenke's not going to move...it's all going to get worked out. The big fella here has been doing a lot of reconnaissance on this issue and I am feeling better about it all the time."

Then he posted this on his forum a week or so ago

"When there's a new stadium, it is unlikely to be downtown... though nothing is certain. But a long-term plan is targeting suburban locations ... a new stadium, however, is a bit down the road ... there will be a lease extension at The Ed to cover the years until a more long-range plan is set."

"No, nothing imminent.

No guarantees, either.

But this situation isn't as nearly as bad as feared. And it's more favorable than most people believe. Important people are at work."

And then this from his latest column:

"I don't think Stan Kroenke will move the Rams. I know that the NFL is against a Rams' move. I would bet that Kroenke won't move the Rams. Guarantees? No. That's never the case. But Kroenke is going to extract what he can from the CVC, simply because he has the contractual right to do so. The Rams actually have a sweet lease deal at The Dome, and Kroenke knows it. (That's the little secret that no one tells you about.) He'll try to build on that strength by securing some other goodies. Plus, the Dome could use some more fan-friendly features, and Kroenke will push for that, as he should. Contrary to popular belief, a Kroenke demand for a new stadium (as soon as possible) isn't likely. A cooperative long-range plan for a stadium is more likely.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... z1nyI2UVnM"

It seems if they're asking for a new stadium, then it'd be part of a longer-term plan. He isn't asking for one to replace the Dome straightaway.

gary kreie · PostMar 05, 2012#6692012-03-05T02:11+00:00

The Rams response on 1 May will be interesting. Will they go really big on their demands? Whatever they do, I am sure the ticket holders will pay for it, probably through a special taxing district bounded by the dome walls. Surely the Rams know all this. So it is a tricky thing for them. What would keep CVC from agreeing to whatever the Rams propose and then just taxing the dome users. The Rams would be stuck here for 10 more years and they would have indirectly priced themselves out of the market.

tbspqr · PostMar 28, 2012#6702012-03-28T05:07+00:00

Looks like Stan Kroenke didn't have the high bid for the L.A. Dodgers. Does this make the Rams moving to LA is 'less likely'?
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/stor ... n-group-2b

rawest1 · PostMar 28, 2012#6712012-03-28T13:58+00:00

^ I would say no. If Stan wants to go, he'll go, no matter what other cicrumstances are present.

That said, every media member/person close to the negotiations has said it is not trending that way.

dredger · PostMar 28, 2012#6722012-03-28T14:55+00:00

rawest1 wrote:^ I would say no. If Stan wants to go, he'll go, no matter what other cicrumstances are present.

That said, every media member/person close to the negotiations has said it is not trending that way.

Have to agree, the dream might have gotten smaller but a move to LA still very much a viable option.

On the same note, Minneapolis Mayor stated that he has the support on his end for a new $1 billion dollar stadium to be built next to the metrodome. He might have sealed the deal for the Vikings staying and one less team that would most likely leaving.

newstl2020 · PostMar 28, 2012#6732012-03-28T14:58+00:00

^This is FAR from a done deal.

In fact, since the mayor has stated his support, most people in the know say the chances have gotten worse for the stadium project as a whole.

goat314 · PostMar 28, 2012#6742012-03-28T22:03+00:00

Everyone needs to calm down. LA still hasn't built a stadium and Roger Goodell said he doesn't want to move any teams, he would rather see expansion.

I think Kroenke will propose a new billion dollar stadium in St. Louis in a few years and if St. Louis fans say HECK NO! It will give him the best case for moving the team to LA. We also have to remember that St. Louis is not the worst NFL market. There are about 10 smaller markets with teams and St. Louis is overall a great sports town, even when teams are not doing the best. I think the Rams will put out a better product on the field in the next few years in anticipation for the next big bid.

Mark Groth · PostMar 29, 2012#6752012-03-29T12:46+00:00

The Rams had the 2nd lowest attendance in 2011. http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance Only Cincy was worse (and they made the playoffs). If we had a team that scores more TDs we'd probably be toward the middle of the pack.

St. Louis Rams

Choose Display Mode