St. Louis Rams

RobbyD · PostMay 09, 2012#7012012-05-09T16:01+00:00

What to make of vibrant cities without the full compliment of pro sports franchises! I mean reality also includes cities like Portland, OR which has no NFL franchise and seems to be doing just fine in the big picture.

It's not either the NFL adds something or the NFL adds nothing. An NFL franchise certainly adds something to the economic mix and identity of a region. The question is at what cost.

And bear in mind that, in St. Louis at least, these other community institutions you mention which add value to our quality of life are free and available to everyone. The Rams most certainly are not.

My wish would be for Mr. Kroenke to make a personal investment in St. Louis and continue to build the Rams brand in the midwest. I think he has a winner here financially and can have one on the field too. And I think he could get a lot of help from local and state gov't were he to become serious about a commitment to St. Louis. And let's face it, the NFL owner pot of gold in Los Angeles is not guaranteed either.

newstl2020 · PostMay 09, 2012#7022012-05-09T16:16+00:00

What to make of vibrant cities without the full compliment of pro sports franchises! I mean reality also includes cities like Portland, OR which has no NFL franchise and seems to be doing just fine in the big picture.

I didn't say it made a vibrant city. I said it was about nothing but vanity.

My wish would be for Mr. Kroenke to make a personal investment in St. Louis and continue to build the Rams brand in the midwest. I think he has a winner here financially and can have one on the field too. And I think he could get a lot of help from local and state gov't were he to become serious about a commitment to St. Louis. And let's face it, the NFL owner pot of gold in Los Angeles is not guaranteed either.

Great. That doesn't change the fact that Stan is going to ask for a heavy helping of tax $ to build the new stadium. And as I said above, we can choose to have the team and buck up and do it or we can choose not to. My whole point was that looking at Sports teams and tax $ we pay to keep them from an ROI standpoint makes no sense, because it is purely a vanity item. The discussion for and against is framed against tax revenue becuase that's what politicians on both sides use in leiu of flat out saying I want to give money to keep the NFL because I like it or I want to get rid of our NFL team. Because either one of those would be stupid politics.

pat · PostMay 09, 2012#7032012-05-09T16:19+00:00

^ I hope Kroenke invests in the Rams as well. I think that as long as you put a good product on the field, STL fans will give it support. Look at the Cards and Blues.

rawest1 · PostMay 09, 2012#7042012-05-09T23:45+00:00

The Rams apparently want a retractable roof. I fail to see how that would increase revenue for the team, add seats, etc. So, I'm a little skeptical an arbitrator would find that necessary for the "top-tier" requirements.

I'm no expert, though. It just seems to me to stand to reason that way.

innov8ion · PostMay 10, 2012#7052012-05-10T00:23+00:00

rawest1 wrote:The Rams apparently want a retractable roof. I fail to see how that would increase revenue for the team, add seats, etc. So, I'm a little skeptical an arbitrator would find that necessary for the "top-tier" requirements.

I'm no expert, though. It just seems to me to stand to reason that way.

Real football is played in the elements. I hope they do put a retractable roof in.

rawest1 · PostMay 10, 2012#7062012-05-10T00:27+00:00

innov8ion wrote:
rawest1 wrote:The Rams apparently want a retractable roof. I fail to see how that would increase revenue for the team, add seats, etc. So, I'm a little skeptical an arbitrator would find that necessary for the "top-tier" requirements.

I'm no expert, though. It just seems to me to stand to reason that way.
Real football is played in the elements. I hope they do put a retractable roof in.

If what you want is football 'played in the elements,' then I don't think a retractable roof is what you're going for

innov8ion · PostMay 10, 2012#7072012-05-10T00:50+00:00

rawest1 wrote:
innov8ion wrote:
rawest1 wrote:The Rams apparently want a retractable roof. I fail to see how that would increase revenue for the team, add seats, etc. So, I'm a little skeptical an arbitrator would find that necessary for the "top-tier" requirements.

I'm no expert, though. It just seems to me to stand to reason that way.
Real football is played in the elements. I hope they do put a retractable roof in.
If what you want is football 'played in the elements,' then I don't think a retractable roof is what you're going for

Why's that? Open the roof and you experience the elements. Only need to close the roof under inclement weather.

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 10, 2012#7082012-05-10T01:13+00:00

rawest1 wrote:The Rams apparently want a retractable roof. I fail to see how that would increase revenue for the team, add seats, etc. So, I'm a little skeptical an arbitrator would find that necessary for the "top-tier" requirements.

I'm no expert, though. It just seems to me to stand to reason that way.

I think an open-air stadium, or retractable roof would be cool, but I agree with you.

newstl2020 · PostMay 10, 2012#7092012-05-10T02:23+00:00

I guess my thought on the roof is based more on the time commitment than anything else.

Are the Rams going to sign a new lease (20+ years) if they get what they want, or are they only sticking to the 10 year extension? Just for the next 10 years? No chance in hell. For me, if they are asking for a retractable roof and some other upgrades here and there (say ~300 Mil), I would be fine with bankrolling the whole thing if they signed a 30 year extension. In the long haul I feel this would be a highly cost effective model for both sides and would be quite fair.

So...baring the cost, they should say fine, Stan. You get what you want, but you are in the Dome (or...retractable roof) until 2045.

gary kreie · PostMay 10, 2012#7102012-05-10T02:34+00:00

rawest1 wrote:The Rams apparently want a retractable roof. I fail to see how that would increase revenue for the team, add seats, etc. So, I'm a little skeptical an arbitrator would find that necessary for the "top-tier" requirements.

I'm no expert, though. It just seems to me to stand to reason that way.

The fans are not clamoring for a retractable roof. It may be cheaper to build a whole new open air stadium. Based on the Minnesota model, we should expect the Rams to pay 55% of the cost, or $500 million, whichever is less.

By going really big, I think this indicates the Rams plan to move to LA or London. Good luck selling tickets for the next 3 years. Anyone interested in my PSL? This, combined with the fact that they didn't draft a playmaker that will sell tickets, and that our offense will still be anemic with no first round receiver, could spell trouble for ticket sales.

rawest1 · PostMay 10, 2012#7112012-05-10T12:24+00:00

gary kreie wrote:
rawest1 wrote:The Rams apparently want a retractable roof. I fail to see how that would increase revenue for the team, add seats, etc. So, I'm a little skeptical an arbitrator would find that necessary for the "top-tier" requirements.

I'm no expert, though. It just seems to me to stand to reason that way.
The fans are not clamoring for a retractable roof. It may be cheaper to build a whole new open air stadium. Based on the Minnesota model, we should expect the Rams to pay 55% of the cost, or $500 million, whichever is less.

By going really big, I think this indicates the Rams plan to move to LA or London. Good luck selling tickets for the next 3 years. Anyone interested in my PSL? This, combined with the fact that they didn't draft a playmaker that will sell tickets, and that our offense will still be anemic with no first round receiver, could spell trouble for ticket sales.

pat · PostMay 10, 2012#7122012-05-10T13:37+00:00

gary kreie wrote:

By going really big, I think this indicates the Rams plan to move to LA or London.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Right now, everyone is afraid the Rams are going to move. That gives them a lot of leverage. So I think from their perspective, they figured "Let's go big". Use all of this fear of the Rams leaving to their advantage.

Maybe they're thinking they could entice the CVC to do something like this...

http://countondowntown.com/2012/02/stlo ... ones-dome/

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 10, 2012#7132012-05-10T14:29+00:00

What's a little unclear to me is the power of the arbitrator. It likely all comes down to how that person(s?) view the "top tier" designation. Do they think a retractable dome equals top-tier because it's the trend? Do they think a dome is better than open-air stadiums because it's climate controlled? These aren't easy questions. The Rams went big because they want to stake out a negotiating point. Will the arbitrator simply seek a middle ground? If it's $60M from the CVC and $300M from the Rams, do they split it and see if the CVC can convince the city/state/taxpayers?

ward24 · PostMay 10, 2012#7142012-05-10T16:14+00:00

Assuming a retractable roof could be built and that it would cost $300 million (which I bet is actually low) Over the course of 10 years we might expect the roof to be open 75% of the time, and closed 25% of the time due to weather. $300 million / 60 games means it would cost $5 million every time the thing moved. Of course, such a roof would have absolutely no spin-off economic value. The word here is boondoggle.

A $300M moveable super roof is so far down the list of things that taxpayers need to be "investing" in that I'm trying hard not to be just appalled at the suggestion, coming as it does from a billionaire. This is on the level of Gingrich's "permanent moonbase by 2020 suggestion."

What else would $300 million build? A comprehensive streetcar network or a north / south MetroLink extension. Or, if we need to "invest" in sports facilities, how about 600 state of the art youth fields, which would actually be used by the people paying for them?

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Ald.

ebo · PostMay 10, 2012#7152012-05-10T16:23+00:00

Right now, everyone is afraid the Rams are going to move. That gives them a lot of leverage. So I think from their perspective, they figured "Let's go big". Use all of this fear of the Rams leaving to their advantage.

Maybe they're thinking they could entice the CVC to do something like this...

You're right, and having the stones to ask for the world is how they got this sweetheart lease to begin with. I believe they were as surprised as anybody when the city agreed to it. Like Alex said, I think both sides are just staking out a point from which they can negotiate.

gary kreie · PostMay 10, 2012#7162012-05-10T20:57+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:What's a little unclear to me is the power of the arbitrator. It likely all comes down to how that person(s?) view the "top tier" designation. Do they think a retractable dome equals top-tier because it's the trend? Do they think a dome is better than open-air stadiums because it's climate controlled? These aren't easy questions. The Rams went big because they want to stake out a negotiating point. Will the arbitrator simply seek a middle ground? If it's $60M from the CVC and $300M from the Rams, do they split it and see if the CVC can convince the city/state/taxpayers?

I understand it is non-binding arbitration. But a contract is a contract -- so someone is going to have to decide whose plan is enough to declare that the improvements put the dome into the upper 1/4 tier. A retractable roof puts it in the upper 1/8 tier, I believe.

PostMay 10, 2012#7172012-05-10T20:59+00:00

ward24 wrote:Assuming a retractable roof could be built and that it would cost $300 million (which I bet is actually low) Over the course of 10 years we might expect the roof to be open 75% of the time, and closed 25% of the time due to weather. $300 million / 60 games means it would cost $5 million every time the thing moved. Of course, such a roof would have absolutely no spin-off economic value. The word here is boondoggle.

A $300M moveable super roof is so far down the list of things that taxpayers need to be "investing" in that I'm trying hard not to be just appalled at the suggestion, coming as it does from a billionaire. This is on the level of Gingrich's "permanent moonbase by 2020 suggestion."

What else would $300 million build? A comprehensive streetcar network or a north / south MetroLink extension. Or, if we need to "invest" in sports facilities, how about 600 state of the art youth fields, which would actually be used by the people paying for them?

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Ald.

I tend to agree. I saw an Indianapolis commenter say the roof there was only open twice in their stadium last year and it was so hot everyone wanted it closed. I was hoping the Rams would propose something in good faith if they plan to stay. No such luck apparently.

PostMay 10, 2012#7182012-05-10T21:06+00:00

I think a reasonable good faith response from the Rams would have gotten the support of the fans and season ticket holders. I've suggested that the CVC accept their plan, and then draw a taxing district around the dome to tax only their customers, and let everyone vote on it. As one of their charter PSL holders since 1995, I really do not want to pay for a retractable roof that will only be open twice a year to let in a lot of light. Instead, how about just putting in a lot of lights to make it as bright as it would be from sunshine. I turn all my kitchen lights on in my West facing kitchen in the morning, and I've been surprised by how, psychologically, it feels the same as having morning sun.

gone corporate · PostMay 10, 2012#7192012-05-10T22:15+00:00

The backers of Farmers Field in LA just put this video together, a must watch:

It looks to be an addition to the LA Live complex, adding in a giant ballroom ("the largest in LA"), a million square feet of convention space, the Stadium itself (which will be LEED-certified), and three additional blocks of parking garages, which I assume would be owned by the developers/team owners. It would be adjacent to the highway and on the edge of Downtown LA. It looks to be a billion dollars worth of stadium and ancillary development. Yes, it's just a pretty schematic and not necessarily going to be built, but wow, the game has changed.

If this sets a high water mark for what a new NFL stadium will require, it not only takes out the Jones Dome but the Meadowlands as well.

I still believe the Rams won't "pull a Pujols" and dart for SoCal (San Diego Chargers, I believe, will relocate to LA before the Rams). Still, if this is the level of what a new stadium development is going to be, it gives credence to the thought that the Rams will be seeking a whole lot for the Jones Dome.

Addendum: I still can't think of football in LA without thinking of The Last Boy Scout
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102266/

newstl2020 · PostMay 11, 2012#7202012-05-11T02:29+00:00

I know that they always "will" but in reality I am not sure the Rams will be ever given the legitimate go ahead to move. The stadium has real luxury suites, and is technically up to date even if it was poorly timed. With regard to the Vikings, the Metrodome is literally so bad they could not continue to play there. That is not the case with the dome. I believe the Vikings would have been "allowed" to leave because the stadium is literally not usable. Next comes the Chargers, bills, and 49rs.

Goodell said expansion to LA. If the Chargers do not get a new stadium (as, like the Vikings, it seriously cannot even be used anymore) they will move. Any second team would be an expansion team.

We are too big of a market. The Vikes said this too with regard to the Twin Cities which is true, but once again there was a legitimate NEED (not want) for a new stadium. For some reason I just don't see the Rams being given the same amount of rope.

stlien · PostMay 11, 2012#7212012-05-11T02:34+00:00

ward24 wrote:A $300M moveable super roof is so far down the list of things that taxpayers need to be "investing" in that I'm trying hard not to be just appalled at the suggestion, coming as it does from a billionaire. This is on the level of Gingrich's "permanent moonbase by 2020 suggestion."

What else would $300 million build? A comprehensive streetcar network or a north / south MetroLink extension.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Ald.

Curious, do you think taxpayers would pay $300 million for expansion of transit?

newstl2020 · PostMay 11, 2012#7222012-05-11T02:54+00:00

^I completely support the funding of transit and for the most part agree with Scott's views above, but I think those numbers are WAY off.

A N/S line for Metrolink would likely cost 2 Bil.

2 miles of streetcar in Delmar is costing almost 50 Mil. A truly comprehensive system would likely cost close to a N/S line. It should have been done yesterday and I would do anything to help get funding passed tomorrow. Just saying $300 mil wouldn't get us very close to either.

Would obviously be a HUGE help though, which I am sure is the point

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 11, 2012#7232012-05-11T03:08+00:00

newstl2020 wrote:I know that they always "will" but in reality I am not sure the Rams will be ever given the legitimate go ahead to move. The stadium has real luxury suites, and is technically up to date even if it was poorly timed. With regard to the Vikings, the Metrodome is literally so bad they could not continue to play there. That is not the case with the dome. I believe the Vikings would have been "allowed" to leave because the stadium is literally not usable. Next comes the Chargers, bills, and 49rs.

Goodell said expansion to LA. If the Chargers do not get a new stadium (as, like the Vikings, it seriously cannot even be used anymore) they will move. Any second team would be an expansion team.

We are too big of a market. The Vikes said this too with regard to the Twin Cities which is true, but once again there was a legitimate NEED (not want) for a new stadium. For some reason I just don't see the Rams being given the same amount of rope.

Excellent perspective.

stlien · PostMay 11, 2012#7242012-05-11T03:39+00:00

newstl2020 wrote:^I completely support the funding of transit and for the most part agree with Scott's views above, but I think those numbers are WAY off.

A N/S line for Metrolink would likely cost 2 Bil.

2 miles of streetcar in Delmar is costing almost 50 Mil. A truly comprehensive system would likely cost close to a N/S line. It should have been done yesterday and I would do anything to help get funding passed tomorrow. Just saying $300 mil wouldn't get us very close to either.

Would obviously be a HUGE help though, which I am sure is the point

Oh ok, good to know. Actually the full N/S would be around 1 bil.

newstl2020 · PostMay 11, 2012#7252012-05-11T13:59+00:00

^That was an estimate from when? 10 years ago? The Westbound expansion via a semi existing cooridoor cost what? 700 mil? A "true" cost would likely now be closer to 2 bil IMO. Either way, we cannot build the line with 300 mil. Scott's point was that we could spend that on things that would be much more usefull and beneficial to tax payers, which is the important part right?

St. Louis Rams

Choose Display Mode