urbanSTL

^I would love to see a vote as well. Even a halfway legitimate poll would be extremely interesting to see the results of.

I would venture a guess that there would be an extreme disconnect between what the city voters would choose and what the metro area as a whole would choose.

Anyway, this is about the Rams, right ? When are the details due to be realeased? I thought it was Monday...

I think it would be great if the Rams stayed in the area but moved to suburbia (honestly the best case scenario IMO). The CVC could upgrade the dome and increase their convention space. Businesses would do better with more conventions and less football games.

pat wrote:I think it would be great if the Rams stayed in the area but moved to suburbia (honestly the best case scenario IMO). The CVC could upgrade the dome and increase their convention space. Businesses would do better with more conventions and less football games.

I would disagree with your thoughts on Rams moving to suburbia would be better for a couple of reasons.

1) I doubt that Ram's schedule as it stands now impacts CVC convention schedule nor do I think you could get enough big conventions to warrant the days that Rams make use of the Dome. In other words, I very much doubt that you will get more convention business by having the Rams leave.

2) The idea of retractable roof introduces a grass surface. The NFL is facing countless lawsuits and grass fields are by far the best playing surface, it does come back to nature no matter how hard man tries to engineer things. The plus side of grass - instant soccer facility for an owner who happens to own a English club. Another use for Dome, CVC, and Rams owner.

3) Any possibility of the raised section of I-70 coming down needs some strong backing from everybody. Having Stan K/Rams arguing that it is of benefit to the organization and tailgating fans is just one more big supporter that needs to be lined up but well worth it in my opinion.

4) Finally, The reality is that Stan K is one of the richest individuals in the state of Missouri. For all intents and purposes, better or worse, I think the regions urban core needs that individual to have a stake in downtown.

newstl2020 wrote:^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?

It was from 5 years ago; when construction costs were at their peak. I know we can't build the line with only 300 mil. But if tax payers would kick in that amount, then I think we could get something built.

For instance, the downtown metrolink loop was estimated (in 2007) to cost around $130 mil. Under the FTA's New Starts program, we could qualify for about 50% of the capital costs, then we could have tax payers cover the rest. For the record, I don't think they will, but ive been wrong before. I know Scott's point. I was just asking because, with real estate prices and construction costs being off of their highs, now is the time to invest in our public transit and all the parking lots on the planned loops corridor are prime TOD locations.

Sorry to go off topic.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Good point. I'm not sure how likely this is, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them land in a new suburban stadium. The existing dome works for a few more years, giving them time to plan/fund a new stadium. Some suburb will pony up huge tax money for such a big construction project - think Patriot Place and there's likely state incentives for such a project as it will touted as producing jobs and economic development.

Another question is how much the CVC should care if the Rams leave the dome. Are the Rams a huge net plus for the CVC? Perhaps they would benefit from focusing on conventions and not running an NFL stadium? Plus they would have more room for larger and more frequent conventions with the dome space - either as-is, or converted into more traditional convention space at some point. I don't know the answer to this, but I think it's worth considering.

To your first point, I think St. Louis is comparable market more so with the Vikings than say the Patriots. In the case of the Vikings, every proposal that was floated in the suburbs came and went. At the end of the day, a new NFL stadium requires a very healthy state deal and at least a local entitiy with a significant budget. That is either the City or St. Louis County. The part I would have no faith in is Missouri going much beyond what they did for Kansas City Chiefs & Royal (help finance upgrades if not mistaken) and very much believe the Rams share the same opinion.

To your second question, your back to the mentality that if go more space you will get more big conventions. I don't buy the argument for St. Louis even though I would like to believe otherwise. Your talking about competing day in and day out with Vegas, Orlando, Chicago and so on. Sorry, but the Arch and a big muddy river only gets so far when competing against the likes of the Strip, Disneyworld, and top tier cities for convention dollars. In other words, I'm of the opinion that the Rams is net plus for the dome because their is plenty of availability that the CVC can't fill right now. Rams leaving only adds more days of availability

If the Rams want the community to invest $300 million in dome improvements, maybe we should instead consider giving them the dome -- and they take over the remaining payments. Or "sell" them the dome for $200 million and pump that money back into the facility as the St. Louis contribution, in exchange for a new 30 year commitment to stay downtown. Then, like the Cardinals who own their stadium, the Rams could upgrade the facility exactly as they see fit. This would give them a big stake in downtown and the St. Louis metro area.

Reports coming out that the Los Angeles group is strongly pursuing the Raiders which would definitely make sense. History in LA and a horribly outdated stadium.

Here it is... and baby it is not cheap.

I do not see even a scaled down version of this happening.

That being said, its pretty cool.

Scroll to the bottom of the PDF, or someone with more time than me can post


http://ago.mo.gov/RamsDocs.pdf

So I am a little confused as to how this qualifies as a proposal. How is the CVC expected to decide whether or not they want to accept the plan if they have no idea what it is expected to cost, or how the Rams propose to split costs with the CVC, or even if they do at all? How does the arbitration process go if the Rams literally do not even submit a qualified "proposal"? Can the arbitrator just rule that since the Rams did not produce any figures of any kind that they are going with the CVC plan as it is the only actual plan?

Very VERY strange posturing by the Rams here. Are they hoping the CVC gets an estimate (how they are going to do this, I have no idea, as they have not done any of the design work) that is realistic and astronomical and say "That isn't our fault, the CVC got the estimate, not us!"

How is the CVC supposed to decide if they would accept it or not with literally no position from the Rams on what they would pay, if anything?

^ That was exactly my thought too. In the Post-Dispatch article, the following was included:

Kevin Demoff, the Rams' vice president for football operations, wrote a cover letter that accompanied the plan. The plan is "presented in sufficient detail to permit the CVC to price improvements" before the commission's June 1 deadline to accept or reject the proposal, Demoff wrote in the letter.

Well, no, that's not how these negotiations work. The CVC submitted their proposal and did the leg work to make sure that the numbers were generally correct, if not spot-on. Your job, Rams, is to invest the same amount of effort into your design plan -- offering, at the bare minimum, at least one projected quote.

You're right -- very odd. It's impossible to arbitrate if one of the parties doesn't offer up a defined proposal.

^ It would be different if the Rams owned the stadium. They don't. Apparently it's the responsibility of the stadium owners, CVC/Stadium Authority, to obtain pricing for the Rams' proposal. The process just takes time...

Ok, so let's assume this is the case.

Are the Rams, in turn, waiting to see what the "improvements" would cost before determining what amount they are proposing to pay for? Why does this not violate the May 1st date that they had to submit their counterproposal? What sense does it make to provide your "plan" with no idea how much it will cost? The owners of the Vikings are paying 477 mil plus of a 1 bil stadium. So depending on whether or not this is 200 million (it won't be) or 750 Mil (It very well could be), they would be reasonably expected to pay vastly different amounts of money.

If the Rams say they aren't paying anything can the arbitrator just side completely with the CVC? They can't reasonably say they shouldn't be expected to contribute as the precedent for owner investment has literally JUST been established as of today with the signing of the Vikings stadium bill. Once again this is very odd. Literally does not resemble anything remotely close to a "negotiation."

^ Because proposal scope didn't include cost -- just the improvements necessary from each party's perspective to keep the EJD at the "top-tier" designation. I'm pretty certain the Rams organization knows approximately how much their proposed improvement will cost and how a cost allocation could appear. This is just part of the negotiation process we're watching unfold. In other words, patience is a virtue.

Gotcha. Just seems like a very convoluted process.

Does anyone know if there is anything in the arbitration process that would allow the CVC and Rams to change the terms of the lease contingent upon upgrades (ie add length to the life of the lease)? This IMO could be the biggest determining factor in whether or not the city/state should fund improvements.

Second, the Vike's new plan here basically calls for Wilf to bring an MLS team to Minneapolis as an additional revenue stream to justify the stadium. Does not specifically require him to succeed or pay penalties, but gives him an exclusive 5 year window to negotiate for an MLS team. I wonder if Stan K would be open to this as well to increase the "return" and tax revenue to help pay for what would be an essentially brand new stadium. Would bringing an MLS team into the fold change anyone's minds here about whether or not we should do the upgrades?

I don't really see what is odd here. The CVC is basically the landlord of the building. They've offered what feel is necessary to meet the contract. The Rams have made their offer. The Rams have only itemized what they think is appropriate to meet the "top tier" status. The CVC is welcome to see what that costs, and it is probably in their best interest.

I don't know what the contract states. But if its anything like a glorified landlord/renter's contract, I don't why the Rams are responsible by law to pay for any of the upgrades etc. Its not their building.

The only that is odd is having to meet the incredibly vague "top tier" status. It's impossible to meet and hard to define. The CVC or City (or whoever made the deal) screwed themselves (and us) when they originally signed the contract. The Rams are in an incredible position.

I think the arbitrator will really define all of this. Let's hope whoever does it, is not already in the pockets of a well off Rams investor.

^I definitely agree that whoever signed the lease screwed us. No debate there.

With regard to your landlord idea, the Vikings aren't going to "own" the stadium here in Minnesota. Why are they paying for any of it? Because it is not feasable for them to not pay for a large portion of it (essentially half). Don't see why these improvements would be any different.

^That seems a little simplified. If the Vikings don't actually want to leave, and the citizens don't want to pay the entire cost for a new stadium, then, yeah, the Vikings are going to have to chip in some money to get the facility they want.

That logic doesn't necessarily apply in this situation. Our situation is a bit more complicated. You seem to be assuming that the Rams have no reason but to stay in STL or they want to help pay for upgrades to the Dome. The Rams have ties to LA and have visions of a new billion dollar stadium in LA.

So if I'm the Rams, in one hand I can potentially get a brand new stadium in LA for no cost to me; I have an existing fan base that I left 16 yrs ago; I have a young franchise quarterback and plenty of first round draft picks to stir up new interest. Or in the other hand, I can stay in St Louis and help pay for the costs to rehab the Dome with an established fan base.

I don't see getting the Rams to help pay for this as being that easy.

LA still doesn't have a stadium and from what I'm hearing it wont be cheap for any owner to move to LA because the league has some pretty heavy relocation fees that wouldn't work without a lot of public subsidies or a sweetheart deal (like they have here in STL). I'm really not worried about the Rams leaving and think they will pretty much get what they want out of this city and state.