There are definite improvements here, and I think the Rams & Stan K can work with this in their presumptive counter-proposals.
The extended hallways and related improvements along the East/Broadway side of the Dome are quite nice, especially thinking about how they will add natural light inside while bringing in the novelty of porch decks with possible recliners to a football stadium. Replacing the current scoreboards with the Dallas-esque above-field scoreboards would open up a lot of room for new seats, and increased points-of-purchase would definitely help increase gross sales revenues. Cleaning up the courtyard between the Convention Center and the Dome is definitely appreciated, as it's little more than a dirty cement cove for the smokers. Filling the walls with pictures, decorations, and flat screens are great improvements and should help kill the "dingy" feel of the Dome's current iteration (and should have been done long ago). And, you've got to love how each page is titled "CONFIDENTIAL".
What's most important remains Section IV: Obligations for Payment.
Listed on Page 123, it reiterates the CVC's argument on how much each side is responsible to pay. From the document:
IV. OBLIGATIONS FOR PAYMENT
Limitation To First-Tier Plan For Items Generally Provided By NFL Franchisee
Though CVC's plan includes all of the aforesaid improvements, CVC is not proposing that it be solely responsible for the cost of those items.
The Amended Lease provides that "It is also acknowledged and agreed that the determination of whether or not this First Tier standard has been met shall not include a comparison to an item in such stadia if such item is generally provided for in the stadia by NFL franchises at the sole cost and expense of the NFL franchises."
This language limits CVC's obligation for new construction or renovatins to the extent the items included in those improvements are generally paid for by the NFL franchisee in other stadia. CVC has researched tha franchisees' contributions to the new stadia built and/or stadia significantly renovated since the last measuring date in 2005. This data indicates that NFL franchisees have been solely responsible for generally providing over fifty percent of the proposed costs of the items included in these stadia projects. Therefore, CVC is only obligated under the Amended Lease to undertake and/or provide funding for less than fifty percent of the proposed costs associated with this plan, and the Rams have the obligation to fund the balance of the improvements.
I believe that this is the crux of the entire deal. If the Rams are liable for 50%+ of the costs to the new stadium, to be determined through Arbitration, then we'll really know if this will happen. If Arbitration says that the Rams'll owe 50%+ of the costs of improvements, then we just have to hope that the improvements won't cost $700M and force the CVC, etc. to try to find $350M. If this argument fails, and the CVC is left with the whole costs to improvement, then odds are the Rams can do whatever they want. That said, I see this position as quite strong, utilizing industry precedent in conjunction with the content of the contract.
Long-term, I do see both sides reaching a deal, and the Rams staying in STL.
