FWIW - nextSTL story here: http://nextstl.com/downtown/in-reply-ra ... ier-status
- 3,433
In order to get out of the lease, the Rams had to propose something to CVC that was so expensive, so over the top, that they knew CVC would have to reject it. That's what they did. If they had proposed something reasonable, in good faith, as I had hoped, (like the CVC proposal), they ran the risk that CVC might accept it outright. Then they could not have gotten out of the lease. I assume in arbitraton they will pretend to negotiate, but will never get to something that CVC might accept, so they can get out of the lease. The Rams wanted their proposal to remain confidential to not alienate fans for the remaining three years here.
If the CVC accepts this proposal, where will the Rams play for three years while this is being built? Busch?
I'd like to see the CVC accept the Rams plan, and then define a tax boundary that matches the walls of the new dome, and tax the Rams customers. It would about double the price of Rams tickets -- ($700,000,000 / 70K seats / 15 years / 10 games per year) = $67 per game.
If the CVC accepts this proposal, where will the Rams play for three years while this is being built? Busch?
I'd like to see the CVC accept the Rams plan, and then define a tax boundary that matches the walls of the new dome, and tax the Rams customers. It would about double the price of Rams tickets -- ($700,000,000 / 70K seats / 15 years / 10 games per year) = $67 per game.
^ I don't think it is an over the top proposal and in some respects recognizes that the RAMS are not going to get a new $750 mil to $1 billion dollar stadium outright and $500 million is probably the top end at the end of the day. That is what top tier stadiums are going these days, from San Fran breaking ground on a new stadium to the Vikings to what is being proposed for LA (in two different locations).
What is dissapointing in my mind, Why couldn't Rams be up front on what they wanted in first place instead this nonsense for a week or two and why not state where your willing to go with financing.
The question to ask, who is finally going to say thanks but no thanks first? NFL who will say that such and such stadium proposal is not good enough and approve a move to LA or eventually a city/region/state that doesn't want or simply can't afford to foot the bill, either it be St. Louis, Oakland, Jacksonville. So far NFL owners have been getting what they want as of late in markets that are bigger (think Cowboy stadium, Meadowlands, 49ers). What happens in mid size markets going forward?
What is dissapointing in my mind, Why couldn't Rams be up front on what they wanted in first place instead this nonsense for a week or two and why not state where your willing to go with financing.
The question to ask, who is finally going to say thanks but no thanks first? NFL who will say that such and such stadium proposal is not good enough and approve a move to LA or eventually a city/region/state that doesn't want or simply can't afford to foot the bill, either it be St. Louis, Oakland, Jacksonville. So far NFL owners have been getting what they want as of late in markets that are bigger (think Cowboy stadium, Meadowlands, 49ers). What happens in mid size markets going forward?
Well we've already seen plenty of midsized and small markets (Kansas City, Green Bay, Indianapolis, New Orleans) spend hundreds of millions of dollars to improve their own stadiums as well. Let's hope our leadership and the Rams brass can work out a creative solution so that most of these things can happen, and we can continue to compete with cities like that for bigger conventions, Super Bowls, NCAA Final Fours, etc. Not to mention continue to compete with them in the NFL. I know I'd rather live in a city like that. I'm already looking for internships in Indianapolis in case this whole thing falls apart.dredger wrote:^ I don't think it is an over the top proposal and in some respects recognizes that the RAMS are not going to get a new $750 mil to $1 billion dollar stadium outright and $500 million is probably the top end at the end of the day. That is what top tier stadiums are going these days, from San Fran breaking ground on a new stadium to the Vikings to what is being proposed for LA (in two different locations).
What is dissapointing in my mind, Why couldn't Rams be up front on what they wanted in first place instead this nonsense for a week or two and why not state where your willing to go with financing.
The question to ask, who is finally going to say thanks but no thanks first? NFL who will say that such and such stadium proposal is not good enough and approve a move to LA or eventually a city/region/state that doesn't want or simply can't afford to foot the bill, either it be St. Louis, Oakland, Jacksonville. So far NFL owners have been getting what they want as of late in markets that are bigger (think Cowboy stadium, Meadowlands, 49ers). What happens in mid size markets going forward?
Piece by Burwell on the Rams proposal...
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 0c569.html
This stadium proposal is a pretty good one. It would make the Dome a great facility. Not sure how I feel about closing Broadway. It all depends on how much the City is asked to pay for and what the Arbitrator says is needed. But in today's economy, this isn't doable. And I think its ignorant of Burwell to suggest the City help fund a $500 to $700 million project while losing money from conventions, when the City is cutting cops, firemen, has a had a 2 or 3 year furlough, and has had cuts in multiple other departments.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 0c569.html
But its still very ambitious and hard to stomach in today's economy.He writes:
Look very carefully at the plan. It is not an over-the-top, ostentatious, football-only counteroffer that attempts to thrust the Dome to the very top of the National Football League's most extravagant stadiums.
Burwell seems to be ignoring all of the conventions we miss when the Rams are using the Dome.The comments from Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff, are typical of the sort of short-sighted rhetoric you should expect to hear as the anti-stadium crowd lines up its key talking points. Rainford says the two-year renovation window would make it impossible to host large conventions. What he doesn't say is that the short-term loss would be well worth the long-term gain of being able to actually have a facility that can host huge events. What he doesn't say is how many large conventions the city loses every year because the Dome isn't competitive with newer, more spectacular facilities.
This stadium proposal is a pretty good one. It would make the Dome a great facility. Not sure how I feel about closing Broadway. It all depends on how much the City is asked to pay for and what the Arbitrator says is needed. But in today's economy, this isn't doable. And I think its ignorant of Burwell to suggest the City help fund a $500 to $700 million project while losing money from conventions, when the City is cutting cops, firemen, has a had a 2 or 3 year furlough, and has had cuts in multiple other departments.
After arbitration and/or negotiations remove at least one or two things from the Rams' proposal, and you include Stan Kroenke's no-doubt significant contribution (if we're remaining consistent with almost every stadium project in the NFL), and the NFL's G4 stadium fund, itself worth up to a couple hundred mil, AND the 80 mil the CVC reportedly has saved up, the final price tag for the city/state/county contribution would be small compared to this 700 mil figure people keep throwing around.pat wrote:Piece by Burwell on the Rams proposal...
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 0c569.html
But its still very ambitious and hard to stomach in today's economy.He writes:
Look very carefully at the plan. It is not an over-the-top, ostentatious, football-only counteroffer that attempts to thrust the Dome to the very top of the National Football League's most extravagant stadiums.
Burwell seems to be ignoring all of the conventions we miss when the Rams are using the Dome.The comments from Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff, are typical of the sort of short-sighted rhetoric you should expect to hear as the anti-stadium crowd lines up its key talking points. Rainford says the two-year renovation window would make it impossible to host large conventions. What he doesn't say is that the short-term loss would be well worth the long-term gain of being able to actually have a facility that can host huge events. What he doesn't say is how many large conventions the city loses every year because the Dome isn't competitive with newer, more spectacular facilities.
This stadium proposal is a pretty good one. It would make the Dome a great facility. Not sure how I feel about closing Broadway. It all depends on how much the City is asked to pay for and what the Arbitrator says is needed. But in today's economy, this isn't doable. And I think its ignorant of Burwell to suggest the City help fund a $500 to $700 million project while losing money from conventions, when the City is cutting cops, firemen, has a had a 2 or 3 year furlough, and has had cuts in multiple other departments.
All for a state-of-the-art facility that can host winter classics, EPL games, Super Bowls, NCAA Final Fours, and even bigger and better conventions. I want to live in a city that can compete for these things. Very badly.
Get the deal done ASAP, if you ask me.
- 2,386
Really?I'm already looking for internships in Indianapolis in case this whole thing falls apart.
The unfounded fascination with Indianapolis is starting to get Portland-esque. Like it has become the promised land of the midwest. Indy is half the size of St. Louis AND FEELS LIKE IT. They are doing some good things but so is everywhere else. We were in Indy for the Big 10 Championship football game last year and across the board the experience was not enjoyed by the MANY people we spoke to. Granted we were with Wisconsin fans, but everyone was appalled at the utter lack of bars, restaurants, anything fun to do. It is HARD to find a bar in Indy.
Like I said, they are doing some great things, and I hope they continue to do so. But to say they are at all even remotely comparable to StL at this point is ridiculous. Maybe I just don't see it, but I went to school an hour away in Cinci, routinely went to Indy with friends, have driven through and around the city too many times to count, and have visited for 5 football games (weekends) in the past 3 years and just flat out do not get what people are seeing.
Back on topic and to your next post, I agree with you there. Although the one HUGE unknown is Stan K's (Ram's) contribution. The Vike's contribution includes the G4 stadium fund which is providing 200M (IIRC). So If Stan agrees to pay $350 (half of the $700 price) that leaves him paying $150 and the G4 fund paying $200. Add in $80M from the CVC (Huge if they have this, that would be awesome and very good planning) and that leaves a gap of $270 Mil. Not exactly insubstantial, but I would hope that the city and state could figure out a way to get that funded. Although it won't help any that they are all still paying for the current stadium. More than likely, new revenue streams (taxes) will have to be proposed on the new stadium to help foot the bill, which I would prefer and would be good with me. I highly doubt we will even be close to the $300 average Cowboy's ticket even if they choose to fund the whole stadium that way.
- 11K
Burwell: "the shortsighted anti-stadium crowd that won't be happy until we're living in a pro sports-free ghost town"
What an a$$wipe.
What an a$$wipe.
There's a bit more to it than just that. I've visited the city several times too and I just like it there. It feels cleaner, polished and whatnot because it is newer (not to take away from the beautiful historic architecture and rusty, gritty charm of St. Louis which I also love). It feels like a more up-and-coming city, its forward-thinking leadership unified the city and county decades ago, and they regularly compete for premier sporting events and conventions. That's the kind of city I want to live in. If they keep doing what they're doing, I think the bars and nightlife spots will follow.newstl2020 wrote:Really?I'm already looking for internships in Indianapolis in case this whole thing falls apart.
The unfounded fascination with Indianapolis is starting to get Portland-esque. Like it has become the promised land of the midwest. Indy is half the size of St. Louis AND FEELS LIKE IT. They are doing some good things but so is everywhere else. We were in Indy for the Big 10 Championship football game last year and across the board the experience was not enjoyed by the MANY people we spoke to. Granted we were with Wisconsin fans, but everyone was appalled at the utter lack of bars, restaurants, anything fun to do. It is HARD to find a bar in Indy.
Like I said, they are doing some great things, and I hope they continue to do so. But to say they are at all even remotely comparable to StL at this point is ridiculous. Maybe I just don't see it, but I went to school an hour away in Cinci, routinely went to Indy with friends, have driven through and around the city too many times to count, and have visited for 5 football games (weekends) in the past 3 years and just flat out do not get what people are seeing.
But of course my first and foremost hope is that a deal gets done to renovate the Dome/America's Center and keep the Rams here.
My gut is it will happen. I'm just making contingencies.
- 2,386
$700 million is a crazy number, but $270 really is not. If Stan and the Rams and anywhere near $350 with their contribution and the NFL's contribution, I actually think this is a no brainer to do.
It sucks that the owners won't build these stadiums for the better good of the civic body, but that just isn't going to happen. I would rather use the money for transit, etc, but to get the facility that they are proposing at that price (keep in mind this would have to get state help as well) would be a very good deal for the city and IMO would be well worth the price.
I don't know Stan personally, but hopefully having him that invested in StL (specifically downtown) will lead to him having a more active role in the pursuit of business and development for the city. I know you don't make $270 mil decisions based on hope, but I have a hard time seeing how he would not end up becoming a booster for the city.
It sucks that the owners won't build these stadiums for the better good of the civic body, but that just isn't going to happen. I would rather use the money for transit, etc, but to get the facility that they are proposing at that price (keep in mind this would have to get state help as well) would be a very good deal for the city and IMO would be well worth the price.
I don't know Stan personally, but hopefully having him that invested in StL (specifically downtown) will lead to him having a more active role in the pursuit of business and development for the city. I know you don't make $270 mil decisions based on hope, but I have a hard time seeing how he would not end up becoming a booster for the city.
Clearly his bias as a sports columnist, and his sensationalism as a member of the modern media (both in the comment you quoted, and his 'undisputed proof' comment) are showing. That said I really liked the article, and agreed with most of its finer points.Alex Ihnen wrote:Burwell: "the shortsighted anti-stadium crowd that won't be happy until we're living in a pro sports-free ghost town"
What an a$$wipe.
If I remember reading correctly, Kroenke's company has been in talks with the CVC over other downtown projects, including possible renovations to Union Station. That would certainly fit the bill of someone looking to invest in downtown St. Louis.newstl2020 wrote:$700 million is a crazy number, but $270 really is not. If Stan and the Rams and anywhere near $350 with their contribution and the NFL's contribution, I actually think this is a no brainer to do.
It sucks that the owners won't build these stadiums for the better good of the civic body, but that just isn't going to happen. I would rather use the money for transit, etc, but to get the facility that they are proposing at that price (keep in mind this would have to get state help as well) would be a very good deal for the city and IMO would be well worth the price.
I don't know Stan personally, but hopefully having him that invested in StL (specifically downtown) will lead to him having a more active role in the pursuit of business and development for the city. I know you don't make $270 mil decisions based on hope, but I have a hard time seeing how he would not end up becoming a booster for the city.
- 1,610
We can compete for these things all they want, but we're not going to see much of a change. Excluding Indy this year and NYC next year, Super Bowls are for warm climates. There may be an occasional cooler climated Super Bowl, but it won't be a constant thing. And I don't see St. Louis getting a Winter Classic anytime soon, either, regardless of stadiums. It doesn't get super cold here in late Dec/early Jan, which I think might come into more consideration after the game in Philly this year where the ice was melting during the game. And if its just a hole above the playing surface, I don't think that's what the NHL would be looking for in a Winter Classic location, anyway. I can maybe see us getting a more favorable rotation on the Regional Finals/Final Four list, but I still feel like the New Orleans/Atlanta/Houston/Indy quadrant of cities will continue to be the dominant 4 locations.rawest1 wrote:
All for a state-of-the-art facility that can host winter classics, EPL games, Super Bowls, NCAA Final Fours, and even bigger and better conventions. I want to live in a city that can compete for these things. Very badly.
Get the deal done ASAP, if you ask me.
Didn't Detroit host the Super Bowl too? I'm fairly certain the 'warm climate' thing is a trend they will continue to move away from. This renovation would put us on equal, if not better, footing than those 4 locations you mentioned, so we will be given a fair shot at hosting them if not a better shot.ricke002 wrote:We can compete for these things all they want, but we're not going to see much of a change. Excluding Indy this year and NYC next year, Super Bowls are for warm climates. There may be an occasional cooler climated Super Bowl, but it won't be a constant thing. And I don't see St. Louis getting a Winter Classic anytime soon, either, regardless of stadiums. It doesn't get super cold here in late Dec/early Jan, which I think might come into more consideration after the game in Philly this year where the ice was melting during the game. And if its just a hole above the playing surface, I don't think that's what the NHL would be looking for in a Winter Classic location, anyway. I can maybe see us getting a more favorable rotation on the Regional Finals/Final Four list, but I still feel like the New Orleans/Atlanta/Houston/Indy quadrant of cities will continue to be the dominant 4 locations.rawest1 wrote:
All for a state-of-the-art facility that can host winter classics, EPL games, Super Bowls, NCAA Final Fours, and even bigger and better conventions. I want to live in a city that can compete for these things. Very badly.
Get the deal done ASAP, if you ask me.
Which is a lot different from our situation right now.
- 2,386
^True and true.
Looking through the comments on StLtoday really irked me last night. (I know, I know)
All these people complaining about using "my" tax money for the stadium. If I have my facts straight, aren't the city and St. Louis county (ie inside 270) the only ones currently paying for the stadium? (along with the state, of course) The new deal MUST include funding from the outer counties as well, as there have been massive demographic shifts. Jeff Co and St. Charles simply MUST pay their share of any new stadium deal. It doesn't even have to be the same amount as the city and county, but they MUST contribute SOMETHING.
These people sit out in the ex-urbs contributing nothing to the ZMD or the local stadiums that we have for our sports teams, pay no city earnings tax, etc etc and still utilize all of the amenities and it just is not fair or just. On top of this all they have the gall to not contribute anything and complain about ***** gas prices when we don't even tax them on that. This HAS to end in with these new improvements. They have free-loaded for far too long, and it is time to start being a contributing member of the metro area.
Looking through the comments on StLtoday really irked me last night. (I know, I know)
All these people complaining about using "my" tax money for the stadium. If I have my facts straight, aren't the city and St. Louis county (ie inside 270) the only ones currently paying for the stadium? (along with the state, of course) The new deal MUST include funding from the outer counties as well, as there have been massive demographic shifts. Jeff Co and St. Charles simply MUST pay their share of any new stadium deal. It doesn't even have to be the same amount as the city and county, but they MUST contribute SOMETHING.
These people sit out in the ex-urbs contributing nothing to the ZMD or the local stadiums that we have for our sports teams, pay no city earnings tax, etc etc and still utilize all of the amenities and it just is not fair or just. On top of this all they have the gall to not contribute anything and complain about ***** gas prices when we don't even tax them on that. This HAS to end in with these new improvements. They have free-loaded for far too long, and it is time to start being a contributing member of the metro area.
Are you saying Superbowls are in warmer climates for the fanfare or for the game itself? Because the roof would be retractable.ricke002 wrote:
We can compete for these things all they want, but we're not going to see much of a change. Excluding Indy this year and NYC next year, Super Bowls are for warm climates. There may be an occasional cooler climated Super Bowl, but it won't be a constant thing. And I don't see St. Louis getting a Winter Classic anytime soon, either, regardless of stadiums. It doesn't get super cold here in late Dec/early Jan, which I think might come into more consideration after the game in Philly this year where the ice was melting during the game. And if its just a hole above the playing surface, I don't think that's what the NHL would be looking for in a Winter Classic location, anyway. I can maybe see us getting a more favorable rotation on the Regional Finals/Final Four list, but I still feel like the New Orleans/Atlanta/Houston/Indy quadrant of cities will continue to be the dominant 4 locations.
- 6,775
There's a reason I never read his columns. Sounds like you're just discovering it.Alex Ihnen wrote:Burwell: "the shortsighted anti-stadium crowd that won't be happy until we're living in a pro sports-free ghost town"
What an a$$wipe.
Agreed. He is a waste of time. Might as well pick someone randomly off the street and ask for their thoughts on sports.the central scrutinizer wrote:There's a reason I never read his columns. Sounds like you're just discovering it.Alex Ihnen wrote:Burwell: "the shortsighted anti-stadium crowd that won't be happy until we're living in a pro sports-free ghost town"
What an a$$wipe.
- 1,610
rawest1 wrote: Didn't Detroit host the Super Bowl too? I'm fairly certain the 'warm climate' thing is a trend they will continue to move away from. This renovation would put us on equal, if not better, footing than those 4 locations you mentioned, so we will be given a fair shot at hosting them if not a better shot.
Which is a lot different from our situation right now.
Yes, I forgot Detroit did host the Steelers-Seahawks SB, but again, probably a one time thing. Detroit = new stadium before getting Super Bowl, cold climate. Indy = new stadium before getting Super Bowl, cold climate. NYC = new stadium before getting Super Bowl, cold climate. Miami = old stadium still hosting Super Bowls, warm climate. Atlanta = old stadium still hosting Super Bowls, warmish climate. New Orleans = old stadium still hosting Super Bowls (was fixed up after Katrina), warm climate. San Diego = old stadium still hosting Super Bowls, warm climate. There is a theme. Not saying it can't be broken, but I personally don't think it will be the norm to see cold Super Bowls. The NFL doesn't want to see what happened in Dallas (ice storm) 2 years ago happen often.
And to Pat, I am not saying Super Bowls = warm climates, the NFL is saying that. I think mostly for the fanfare for the week of, but it does make for a better overall game. Look to the Bears-Colts in '06 for example of rain. Granted, it was Rex Grossman at QB, but lots of fumbles and overall sloppy play. Not what the NFL wants for it's biggest game, I'm guessing.
^Guess I'm not seeing your point. If we did the Rams proposed upgrades, it would still be a dome, just with an "operable roof panel". Only some fan activities during the week would deal with the cold weather. So I think this potential upgrade would be desired for a Superbowl, especially being downtown next to night life, hotels, etc.
- 1,610
Again, it's the attitude of the NFL. There's lots of outdoor events during the week of the Super Bowl, few, if any which actually take place on the field. Fortunately this year in Indy the weather was pretty warm for early February for the numerous outdoor activities. Sadly, I think the game itself is an afterthought at this point. Dome or no dome, they'll still prefer warmer climates on a consistent basis, for the week-long party before/during/after the game.pat wrote:^Guess I'm not seeing your point. If we did the Rams proposed upgrades, it would still be a dome, just with an "operable roof panel". Only some fan activities during the week would deal with the cold weather. So I think this potential upgrade would be desired for a Superbowl, especially being downtown next to night life, hotels, etc.
- 6,775
Given the two choices, the curved facade or the "angular" one, I prefer the latter.
- 3,433
As a charter PSL holder, I notice that in the new Rams proposal, my seats in the lower bowl would be even further from the field than they are now. Is this an improvement? They want to rebuild the East side seats further East, and re-center the field. I would think a top-tier stadium would go the other way, like the St. Louis Cardinals did, and get people closer to the field, nor further away. Unless you are just building some kind of monument, rather than a football viewing venue.
They are eliminating the upper corner seats, and building a new upper deck far above the East side seats -- above the 3 or so layers of luxury sky boxes. It may be what Dallas did, but is the view better that high up? Without a hanging video board?
Twenty years from now, Dallas will decide to build a new stadium and will go retro and be smaller (since everyone watches at home) to get the fans closer to the action, and it will look somewhat like the current EJD. Build some party rooms if you want to, but don't compromise actually viewing a football game.
They are eliminating the upper corner seats, and building a new upper deck far above the East side seats -- above the 3 or so layers of luxury sky boxes. It may be what Dallas did, but is the view better that high up? Without a hanging video board?
Twenty years from now, Dallas will decide to build a new stadium and will go retro and be smaller (since everyone watches at home) to get the fans closer to the action, and it will look somewhat like the current EJD. Build some party rooms if you want to, but don't compromise actually viewing a football game.
Maybe your experience has been different from mine, but whenever I sit in the lower bowl, I always wish I were further away because the action is only right in front of me for a fraction of the game. This is true whether I'm on the 50 yard line, or the 10 yard line.gary kreie wrote:As a charter PSL holder, I notice that in the new Rams proposal, my seats in the lower bowl would be even further from the field than they are now. Is this an improvement? They want to rebuild the East side seats further East, and re-center the field. I would think a top-tier stadium would go the other way, like the St. Louis Cardinals did, and get people closer to the field, nor further away. Unless you are just building some kind of monument, rather than a football viewing venue.
They are eliminating the upper corner seats, and building a new upper deck far above the East side seats -- above the 3 or so layers of luxury sky boxes. It may be what Dallas did, but is the view better that high up? Without a hanging video board?
Twenty years from now, Dallas will decide to build a new stadium and will go retro and be smaller (since everyone watches at home) to get the fans closer to the action, and it will look somewhat like the current EJD. Build some party rooms if you want to, but don't compromise actually viewing a football game.
- 6,775
They'll be adding seats between you and the shifted field. So you'll be farther away, but others will be closer.gary kreie wrote:As a charter PSL holder, I notice that in the new Rams proposal, my seats in the lower bowl would be even further from the field than they are now. Is this an improvement? They want to rebuild the East side seats further East, and re-center the field. I would think a top-tier stadium would go the other way, like the St. Louis Cardinals did, and get people closer to the field, nor further away. Unless you are just building some kind of monument, rather than a football viewing venue.