urbanSTL

For the dome, they were looking at putting in window up high above the top row of seats for more light.  They were also proposing video screens hanging from the ceiling for football video replay.  Those don't make a lot of sense now.  Back when the Rams played, I always wished for brighter lighting -- closer to daylight, as other cities --  such as Atlanta --  have installed in their new stadiums.  It always seems dim and dreary in the dome.  Well engineered lighting could do wonders for that place.  I know Kroenke always insisted on a roof that opens.  Until he built his own stadium in LA.

urbanitas wrote: ↑

Oct 17, 2019

wabash wrote: ↑

Oct 17, 2019

^So maybe we just ask Cleveland what that’s like first to confirm that it’s worth it?

Worth what?  They have suffered lousy football, certainly, but Cleveland football fans never had to suffer the insult to injury of being disrespected by the NFL on top of it, let alone twice.  Unlike either relocation from St. Louis, the NFL bent over backwards to make everyone happy when Modell moved (although they did end up getting 2 brand new stadiums out of it). 

And FWIW, I doubt very much that Cuyahoga County voters would have funded a new stadium if they knew the Browns 2.0 would go 95-224-1 over the next 20 seasons, and neither host nor win a single playoff game... 

I was reminded today by a Browns fan that the NFL actually got not two, but three brand new publicly-funded stadiums as a result of Art Modell's move to Baltimore.  Tampa Bay also built a new stadium for the Bucs after they threatened to move to Cleveland to become the Browns 2.0.  And if you extend the musical chairs saga back to Irsay's move of the Colts to Indianapolis, then they ultimately got four new stadiums.

Kroenke's move to LA has already resulted in two new stadiums, one half publicly-funded (Las Vegas) so far, and will result in one more somewhere when the Chargers move, be it back to San Diego, Texas, or elsewhere.

I really hope that the litigation at the very least exposes this shell game for what it is.

Allbright would be the biggest name so far to give this rumor any backing




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^Someone already made the St. Louis Chargers - Energizer Field joke, right?

SeattleNative wrote: ↑

Nov 05, 2019

Allbright would be the biggest name so far to give this rumor any backing




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I still think NFL should pursue two expansion teams, for London and Mexico City, and not a bad move to put Chargers in St. Louis as part of settlement deal.  The two expansion teams franchise fees alone could go a long ways in funding desired STL dome upgrades for Chargers & pay off Oakland Coliseum debt as part of any settlement deal to make St. Louis & Oakland whole while at same time give Stan K & his Rams the whole southern Cali market in order to deal with his new found debt.   
One neat package to resolve legal woes at home while making a big international expansion in two markets with fans bases and big media markets.

I don't understand all this Chargers talk. Didn't they sign a multi-year lease agreement with Kroenke? Aren't they committed to LA? The only reason they're having attendance problems now is because they're temporarily playing in a junior college stadium.  

I just don't think there's any way that the NFL would fund a return to St. Louis, and I don't think there's any way that St. Louis would, either. 

I do wonder how scared the NFL is about this lawsuit. Embarrassing situations in the NFL are commonplace anymore. Nobody cares. They just keep watching football. The NFL will be fine, and they know it. 

framer wrote: ↑

Nov 05, 2019

I don't understand all this Chargers talk. Didn't they sign a multi-year lease agreement with Kroenke? Aren't they committed to LA? The only reason they're having attendance problems now is because they're temporarily playing in a junior college stadium.  

More often than not, a near-majority of Chargers tickets are taken by fans of the opposing team. Yes, they do have a long-term lease with StanK for the new Inglewood stadium, but Angelinos are not buying Chargers PSLs. Within the last year, the franchise cut their projected revenues from 400MM to 150MM; if not for TV revenues, I bet the team would be taking massive losses. The other owners don't like seeing one of their franchises not succeeding as a business, so they're concerned enough to consider getting the Chargers to greener pastures than being StanK's tenant. Hence, they're looking at STL and London. 

Now, the League has done a lot to build up London for visiting teams, but it still doesn't make sense to me to have a franchise based 5 hours ahead of the East Time Zone, i.e. the rest of the AFC East. The logistics would be awful, not just for the teams but for the existing fan bases that won't be able to readily attend games in away markets. Plus, they'd have to reorganize the AFC considerably if they want to convert an AFC West team to an AFC East one. Some short-term gains versus plenty of long-term liabilities. And, for how badly the Spanos family has led their Chargers franchise, why should they be the ones chosen to control the London market? That'd be an award for failing. 

Concurrently, the STL option is pretty much the NFL's big prayer to recapture this market and save their failing franchise while making the giant lawsuit go away, which just isn't going to happen. That the talk of the Chargers relocating to STL continues to be talked about publicly by people connected to the League shows how much they're willing to do whatever it takes to make the lawsuit disappear. This tells me the suit really does have plenty of merit. 

dredger wrote: ↑

Nov 05, 2019

SeattleNative wrote: ↑

Nov 05, 2019

Allbright would be the biggest name so far to give this rumor any backing




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I still think NFL should pursue two expansion teams, for London and Mexico City, and not a bad move to put Chargers in St. Louis as part of settlement deal.  The two expansion teams franchise fees alone could go a long ways in funding desired STL dome upgrades for Chargers & pay off Oakland Coliseum debt as part of any settlement deal to make St. Louis & Oakland whole while at same time give Stan K & his Rams the whole southern Cali market in order to deal with his new found debt.   
One neat package to resolve legal woes at home while making a big international expansion in two markets with fans bases and big media markets.

I don't think we want a team from this set of NFL owners.  We need to wait until they all die, which could be next week from the look of them.  These guys would be giving us a team under duress and have to admit they did something wrong.  I don't think they ever admit anything. They got where they are by being laser focused on taking money, not by being benevolent. 

I would certainly never allow an NFL team without a few conditions.  
1) End the brain liquifying collisions and make the game more about speed, athleticism, clever plays, deception and accuracy. Not about fat guys, tackling, hits, and high speed collisions.  And get rid of team names that label or "honor" groups of people.  Stick with birds, animals, and whatever a charger is.  
2) St. Louis gets a new stadium and a Super Bowl. I think St. Louis was the only NFL team with a dome that did not get Super Bowl, even though the NFL & owner didn't have to spend a dime to help build the stadium.  
3) If a team moves here, the team name, colors, logos, & everything changes. Like when the Oilers moved to Tennessee.  No city pretending they have always beloved their old team and want them back.  Ideally, it would be an expansion team.  

^ Can definitely see your points, especially a new NFL stadium paid by NFL as condition of return.   But the reality of NFL markets when it comes to stadiums is two tier in my opinion.   The reality is you need a LA, New York, Bay Area or a London for that matter to make what Stan K is building even remotely viable.  That is the first tier.   The second ties is the reality of a solid number of teams are in a mid markets and will never see the public support or economic viable option to build a plus billion dollar stadium.   I think NFL will come that conclusion on future stadiums because its profits at end of the day is about media.. Chargers like the Raiders in Oakland make their money off TV and have been for years.    

To me that is why the St. Louis option for the Charges moving into an upgraded dome, say in the $200-250 million, is plausible.   I just don't see this huge massive payoff to St. Louis no matter how strong you think St louis case is.  It will be years and more years of litigation and NFL not writing a single check for the foreseeable future.   

It is very clear at this point that the NFL seriously miscalculated its hand in this entire matter. They made a litany of poor business, marketing, and PR decisions in order to appease an individual who retains zero care for his fellow owners or the remainder of the league save a few power brokers he deems necessary to advance his personal agenda. It is becoming increasingly apparent that in this endeavor, consistent with too many other documented (via lawsuits etc.) instances to count (aka the rest of his life), Stan Kroenke has f*$cked over everyone around him.

The NFL is flailing to contain the fallout. Nothing would surprise me at this point. I still think the odds of a team moving back here are near zero, but anything the NFL has said and done prior to this point is no longer relevant and needs to be thrown out the window. A far, far, FAR worse "deal" for the NFL may wind up being extremely appealing. There is zero political will at the state or local level to do anything regarding the NFL. Any relocation here would have to be 100% funded privately and as the Spanos family does not have the ammunition to do so, may wind up coming on the backs of the rest of league's owners.

If he isn't dead by then, in 5 years I can't imagine Stan will be getting many friendly greetings in NFL circles.

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Nov 05, 2019

dredger wrote: ↑

Nov 05, 2019

To me that is why the St. Louis option for the Charges moving into an upgraded dome, say in the $200-250 million, is plausible.   I just don't see this huge massive payoff to St. Louis no matter how strong you think St louis case is.  It will be years and more years of litigation and NFL not writing a single check for the foreseeable future.   

Well the CVC offered north of $700 million in renovations to the Dome and the NFL said no, then we offered a new stadium north of $1 billion and they still walked.

No way an NFL team moves back to the Dome, as part of any settlement or other means, with just $250 million in renovations to that building.  That’s probably the most implausible scenario.

Wasn't the CVC offer of $200-250 million in basic renovations while Kroenke's request was the $700 million refit (with retractable roof) of the dome? It went to arbitration where the Rams won since the CVC proposal would not put the dome in compliance with the top tier clause.  I think the CVC balked at the $700 million proposal because it would have just been another 10 year lease. It was at that time that the new stadium task force was put together by Gov Nixon and riverfront proposal came forward and I think they were looking for a 20-30 year lease.

SeattleNative wrote: ↑

Nov 05, 2019

Allbright would be the biggest name so far to give this rumor any backing




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I heard Stalter and Rivers talk about this on 101.1 this morning. Rivers said how he's sick of St. Louis being the pawn in these situations, and quite frankly, I totally agree. They also said how if the Chargers ever came to town, it would for sure put a major damper on the whole MLS movement, which, IMO, would just bring back the old "St. Louis can never move on" or whatever image people around the country have of St. Louis. I just want the city to win a settlement of at least $1 billion so they can make some real progress.

^I could get behind that. A settlement would probably do a lot more good for everyone than another concussionball team. But if we could get another Blood Bowl (tm) . . . I mean handegg . . . I mean American Footieball team I'd probably still be down with it.

BuilditSTL wrote: ↑

Nov 06, 2019

SeattleNative wrote: ↑

Nov 05, 2019

Allbright would be the biggest name so far to give this rumor any backing




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I heard Stalter and Rivers talk about this on 101.1 this morning. Rivers said how he's sick of St. Louis being the pawn in these situations, and quite frankly, I totally agree. They also said how if the Chargers ever came to town, it would for sure put a major damper on the whole MLS movement, which, IMO, would just bring back the old "St. Louis can never move on" or whatever image people around the country have of St. Louis. I just want the city to win a settlement of at least $1 billion so they can make some real progress.

Can anyone think of a settlement involving a sports franchise leaving a city of any sport that even came even close to a Billion and was actually paid out?   I just don't think this going to happen. 
.
First, what is the remaining debt on the dome?  I think that is your settlement and or for that matter what a judge will sign off on or revise any civil damages too.   I think the same for Oakland.  Heck, I wouldn't be surprise if the judge agrees to pay off scheme spread over the number years remaining on the current dome debt payment instead of one big check.  In addition that settlement will go to CVC and therefore county gets a pieces of the action if not mistaken or a say on how CVC decides to move forward with any settlement.  Someone can correct me but I don't believe this would end as strictly a city deal.
.
Second, St Louis might be a pawn in the whole scheme but at some point the NFL needs to find a home for the Chargers that doesn't encroach on another NFL market and that happens to be St. Louis when all said and done.    St. Louis move would be cheap, has a not so great stadium but is bearable with the $250 million upgrades that CVC was proposing, city has a media market and the family can continue getting their cut without handing a part of it to Stan K.   The family can give it a few years of cashing in on the NFL Atm and then put the team up for sale for a tidy profit.  I would give it a serious thought if I was in the Chargers ownership group.   Just to take it step farther, St Louis Chargers have a new owner in five to ten years proposing to build a new football stadium south of Market and next to Union Station across from their successful MLS franchise.

Sc4mayor, it will be interesting to see how this plays out as we are on opposite ends of what we think will happen or what is plausible.  I think the one thing that we could agree on is the NFL desired outcome is to pay St. Louis zero dollars..