Share
3,428
Life MemberLife Member
3,428

PostApr 15, 2023#5151

Should we forgive the dome dealmakers for the top tier requirement? At the time, I don’t believe the NFL was contributing hundreds of millions into new stadium construction. And domes were the top stadiums. So they assumed it would be 30 years before the public in other cities could afford to go on top tier stadium building sprees. But once the NFL massive subsidies started, cities with only 20 year old stadiums could rebuild. So the top tier tumble came unexpectedly (and maybe unfairly) early. And one could argue that ANY dome stadium is higher tier than any non-dome in terms of guest comfort, with full heat and air conditioning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostApr 17, 2023#5152

^Forgive...  Lawyers should never sign on to legally ambiguous language like that.  They should have clearly outlined what it meant and what the city was signing onto.

The decent into obsolescence WAS shockingly steep.  It makes for a lovely BattleDome though.  Maybe we should add some spikes to the roof.
1,877
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,877

PostApr 18, 2023#5153

It was a *really* dumb thing to agree to: https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2010/07/ ... art-lease/
Nagourney was working as an ad marketer for Anaheim Stadium, he explains, when he was hired away by the Rams as a consultant on their relocation plans. “I went to a meeting in Los Angeles one morning. We had a whiteboard, and we’re putting stuff down [to demand from cities]. And some of the stuff, I said, ‘Guys, some of this is crazy.’ And John Shaw, who was president of the Rams at the time — brilliant, brilliant guy — said, ‘They can always say no, let’s ask for it.'”

The result, he says, was “probably the most scandalous deal in the country,” one that notoriously included a clause requiring the team’s new stadium to remain “state-of-the-art,” or else the team could break its lease and leave. (“That was John,” says Nagourney of the state-of-the-art clause.) “The city was poorly represented — the city is always poorly represented,” says Nagourney. “And John Shaw was a brilliant negotiator. And we put in all of these ridiculous things, and the city didn’t have the sense to say no to any of them.”
Forgive, but learn from it. Based on the deals negotiated for Busch III and CityPark stadium builds, it appears the city has.

But don't gloss over just how egregiously bad for the city that clause was, and it was just accepted wholesale without negotiation.

-RBB
7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostApr 18, 2023#5154

rbb wrote: ↑
Apr 18, 2023
It was a *really* dumb thing to agree to: https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2010/07/ ... art-lease/
Nagourney was working as an ad marketer for Anaheim Stadium, he explains, when he was hired away by the Rams as a consultant on their relocation plans. “I went to a meeting in Los Angeles one morning. We had a whiteboard, and we’re putting stuff down [to demand from cities]. And some of the stuff, I said, ‘Guys, some of this is crazy.’ And John Shaw, who was president of the Rams at the time — brilliant, brilliant guy — said, ‘They can always say no, let’s ask for it.'”

The result, he says, was “probably the most scandalous deal in the country,” one that notoriously included a clause requiring the team’s new stadium to remain “state-of-the-art,” or else the team could break its lease and leave. (“That was John,” says Nagourney of the state-of-the-art clause.) “The city was poorly represented — the city is always poorly represented,” says Nagourney. “And John Shaw was a brilliant negotiator. And we put in all of these ridiculous things, and the city didn’t have the sense to say no to any of them.”
Forgive, but learn from it. Based on the deals negotiated for Busch III and CityPark stadium builds, it appears the city has.

But don't gloss over just how egregiously bad for the city that clause was, and it was just accepted wholesale without negotiation.

-RBB
The point is to never negotiate from a point of desperation and that's why they put that stupid clause in there.

The thing is the clause isn't without precedent: the difference is Kroenke actually used it as a tool to leave St. Louis. Other teams have those same type of clause. If you think St. Louis' was written badly, the Bengals clause is even worse. Basically it's written that the team could make whatever updates they want, just give the bill to the city of Cincinnati and they'd have to pay it. But the difference is the Bengals have never abused the blank check or used it as a relocation driver.
3,428
Life MemberLife Member
3,428

PostApr 19, 2023#5155

Right. Neither did Georgia. Who would have thought a Jerry Jones would convince a weak but rich Kroenke to move a team back to LA AND pay a fortune for a new stadium. in a place that failed to get two expansion teams because taxpayers refused to contribute one dime to a new stadium.

I realize Kroenke may come out ahead financially and have his West Coast mausoleum. But other owners who could have moved to LA and also got richer, such as the Steelers owner, didn’t do what Kroenke did. They appreciated their current fans too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostApr 21, 2023#5156

https://www.si.com/fannation/bringmethe ... ext-decade

Report: U.S. Bank Stadium will need $280 million in maintenance over the next decade
The Vikings' stadium will need $48 million in upgrades within the next year.

U.S. Bank Stadium is one of the top stadiums in the NFL, but it's not going to be cheap to keep it that way.
According to a report from the Star Tribune's Rochelle Olson, the home of the Minnesota Vikings will need $280 million in maintenance over the next decade, including $48 million within the next year — though the stadium is in "very good shape" overall. 
But do the Vikings, aided by taxpayer dollars, have enough money to cover the upgrades? 


"The answer to that is no," Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority Chair Michael Vekich told Olson, remarking that securing funding would take a collective effort by the Vikings, stadium operator ASM, and state lawmakers.

U.S. Bank Stadium opened in the summer of 2016 and was partially funded by taxpayers and ownership at the cost of $1.1 billion. Since its opening, it has hosted the 2017 NCAA Men's Final Four, Super Bowl LII and numerous concerts, but has also required millions of dollars in maintenance.
In 2021, the siding on the exterior of the stadium was replaced after the black zinc panels were more susceptible to wind and water damage than originally thought – a project that cost $21 million.
Along with TCO Performance Center in Eagan, which was built at a cost of $90 million and opened in 2018, U.S. Bank Stadium is a key reason why the Vikings were the top team in the NFL Players Association's report cards last month.

If the Vikings want to stay toward the top of that list, they'll have to find a way to come up with the money to keep U.S. Bank Stadium up to date.
2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostApr 21, 2023#5157

Before the Minnesota Vikings decided to stay in downtown Minneapolis, some of you may remember that their ownership group also threatened to move the club to Los Angeles, California. 

The maintenance of that building sounds very expensive.  
7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostApr 21, 2023#5158

RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Apr 21, 2023
Before the Minnesota Vikings decided to stay in downtown Minneapolis, some of you may remember that their ownership group also threatened to move the club to Los Angeles, California. 

The maintenance of that building sounds very expensive.  
Who built their stadium? McBride homes?
548
Senior MemberSenior Member
548

PostApr 21, 2023#5159

dweebe wrote: ↑
Apr 21, 2023
RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Apr 21, 2023
Before the Minnesota Vikings decided to stay in downtown Minneapolis, some of you may remember that their ownership group also threatened to move the club to Los Angeles, California. 

The maintenance of that building sounds very expensive.  
Who built their stadium? McBride homes?
Mortenson construction the same company that built STL City soccer stadium.  The stadium was paid off very quickly with electronic pull tab tax.  
7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostApr 21, 2023#5160

STLAPTS wrote: ↑
Apr 21, 2023
dweebe wrote: ↑
Apr 21, 2023
RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑
Apr 21, 2023
Before the Minnesota Vikings decided to stay in downtown Minneapolis, some of you may remember that their ownership group also threatened to move the club to Los Angeles, California. 

The maintenance of that building sounds very expensive.  
Who built their stadium? McBride homes?
Mortenson construction the same company that built STL City soccer stadium.  The stadium was paid off very quickly with electronic pull tab tax.  
Sorry, bad joke. McBride Homes are notorious for getting slapped up quickly and tons of things needing replacement years 5-10.
548
Senior MemberSenior Member
548

PostApr 21, 2023#5161

dweebe wrote: ↑
Apr 21, 2023
STLAPTS wrote: ↑
Apr 21, 2023
dweebe wrote: ↑
Apr 21, 2023
 Who built their stadium? McBride homes?
Mortenson construction the same company that built STL City soccer stadium.  The stadium was paid off very quickly with electronic pull tab tax.  
Sorry, bad joke. McBride Homes are notorious for getting slapped up quickly and tons of things needing replacement years 5-10.
In your defense, The Vikings stadium has had a ton of issues over the years. 
2,419
Life MemberLife Member
2,419

PostApr 21, 2023#5162

I know that one of the issues that they've had with U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis is that its glass façade kills an absolutely stunning number of birds every year. 
947
Super MemberSuper Member
947

PostApr 27, 2023#5163

gary kreie wrote: ↑
Apr 19, 2023
Right.  Neither did Georgia.  Who would have thought a Jerry Jones would convince a weak but rich Kroenke to move a team back to LA AND pay a fortune for a new stadium.  in a place that failed to get two expansion teams because taxpayers refused to contribute one dime to a new stadium.

I realize Kroenke may come out ahead financially and have his West Coast mausoleum.  But other owners who could have moved to LA and also got richer, such as the Steelers owner, didn’t do what Kroenke did. They appreciated their current fans too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Rams never had the relationship with St. Louis that the Steelers have with Pittsburgh. The Steelers originated in Pittsburgh and have played there for 90 years, and they're tied for the most Super Bowl wins of all time with the Patriots. They've had way more good seasons than bad in the modern era (since 1966). They are 100% a Pittsburgh institution. The Rams started terrible for their first 4 seasons in STL, then they won a Super Bowl, made the playoffs a few more times, and never had a winning regular season record again after 2003.

It's silly to compare the two. It's like comparing the relationship of the baseball Cardinals with St. Louis to the relationship of the Nationals with Washington, DC. 

PostApr 27, 2023#5164

gary kreie wrote: ↑
Apr 15, 2023
Should we forgive the dome dealmakers for the top tier requirement?  At the time, I don’t believe the NFL was contributing hundreds of millions into new stadium construction. And domes were the top stadiums.
Were they, though?

At the time the TWA Dome opened, there were 7 other NFL stadiums with fully enclosed roofs:

Astrodome (opened 1965, began use as NFL stadium in 1970)
Silverdome (1975)
Superdome (1975)
Kingdome (1976)
HHH Metrodome (1982)
RCA Dome (1984)
Georgia Dome (1994)

Only two of those stadiums might have been considered top tier in 1995 - the Superdome and the Georgia Dome (because it was only a year old). The rest were already starting to feel obsolete, and the first would be vacated the very next year after our dome opened (Astrodome). Two more would go out of use over the next 5 years (Kingdome and Silverdome). Only two of the eight fully enclosed stadiums that began use as football stadiums between 1970 and 1995 saw 30 years of use by an NFL franchise, and one of those two only just barely (Metrodome). Only three of those dome stadiums had completely opaque roofs (Superdome, Kingdome, TWA Dome), and two of them hosted their respective NFL teams for fewer than 25 years. The Superdome is the only one that has truly stood the test of time, and mainly because it is a true architectural marvel that has always put it in a class way above all of the other dome stadiums.

Our dome seemed like a good idea when it was first proposed in the late 1980s, but by the time we actually wound up building it, it was sort of like being the person who decided to spend a bunch of money on a brand new top of the line cathode ray tube television - in 2009. Given our fairly mild climate (relative to most NFL cities), it's silly that we ever thought playing football indoors here was a good idea. Every city that currently has a climate-controlled stadium with a fixed or retractable roof makes sense, either because the city is consistently too hot in August/September or too cold in December/January.

As for whether or not we'll ever be home to another NFL franchise some day in the future, I have no idea. But I'm absolutely certain that the hideous monstrosity currently sitting at Broadway and Convention Plaza will never again be home to an NFL franchise, no matter how much lipstick we put on that pig. If we ever get back in that club, it's gonna be with some shiny new billion and a half dollar toy.
613
Senior MemberSenior Member
613

PostApr 27, 2023#5165

^Exactly and Nashville just told use the new price of a stadium in the Midwest and its $2.1 Billion...
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostApr 27, 2023#5166

Is pretty cold Here in January/Feb.  Getting a super bowl in St. Louis would almost require a retractable roof.  The Dome was outdated in many ways but the Dome versus open versus retractable is a pretty arbitrary aspect that way to many people think is the main reason its outdated.
3,428
Life MemberLife Member
3,428

PostApr 30, 2023#5167

DTGstl314 wrote:
gary kreie wrote: ↑
Apr 19, 2023
Right.  Neither did Georgia.  Who would have thought a Jerry Jones would convince a weak but rich Kroenke to move a team back to LA AND pay a fortune for a new stadium.  in a place that failed to get two expansion teams because taxpayers refused to contribute one dime to a new stadium.

I realize Kroenke may come out ahead financially and have his West Coast mausoleum.  But other owners who could have moved to LA and also got richer, such as the Steelers owner, didn’t do what Kroenke did. They appreciated their current fans too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Rams never had the relationship with St. Louis that the Steelers have with Pittsburgh. The Steelers originated in Pittsburgh and have played there for 90 years, and they're tied for the most Super Bowl wins of all time with the Patriots. They've had way more good seasons than bad in the modern era (since 1966). They are 100% a Pittsburgh institution. The Rams started terrible for their first 4 seasons in STL, then they won a Super Bowl, made the playoffs a few more times, and never had a winning regular season record again after 2003.

It's silly to compare the two. It's like comparing the relationship of the baseball Cardinals with St. Louis to the relationship of the Nationals with Washington, DC. 
You are making my point. I said the Steelers owner could have moved his team to LA and got richer than he is now. Am I wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PostApr 30, 2023#5168

STLEnginerd wrote:Is pretty cold Here in January/Feb.  Getting a super bowl in St. Louis would almost require a retractable roof.  The Dome was outdated in many ways but the Dome versus open versus retractable is a pretty arbitrary aspect that way to many people think is the main reason its outdated.
Only 5 of the 30 NFL stadiums have retractable roofs. All built before 2010 except Atlanta. Nearly every stadium with a retractable roof keeps them closed for 2/3 of their NFL games or more. Of the newest stadiums, Kroenke didn’t bother with one. Neither did Vegas. There is something to be said for being able to make a stadium totally dark in daytime. Such as for a Stones concert in September. So time to stop thinking a retractable dome would have retained the Rams.

I doubt that Nashville will fund a retractable hole so folks can see a small square of blue 3 games per year. They should want a daytime blackout option for all those country concerts.
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostMay 02, 2023#5169

Everyone know the "top tier" clause was BS to justify whatever they wanted to do.  They were betting St. Louis would balk at a new stadium, and when they came with a new stadium proposal they decided to leave anyway.  More like they went ahead with their plan.  The end goal was to leave.  The rest was just a waste of our time and money.
947
Super MemberSuper Member
947

PostMay 03, 2023#5170

gary kreie wrote: ↑
Apr 30, 2023
STLEnginerd wrote:Is pretty cold Here in January/Feb.  Getting a super bowl in St. Louis would almost require a retractable roof.  The Dome was outdated in many ways but the Dome versus open versus retractable is a pretty arbitrary aspect that way to many people think is the main reason its outdated.
Only 5 of the 30 NFL stadiums have retractable roofs. All built before 2010 except Atlanta.  Nearly every stadium with a retractable roof keeps them closed for 2/3 of their NFL games or more. Of the newest stadiums, Kroenke didn’t bother with one. Neither did Vegas. There is something to be said for being able to make a stadium totally dark in daytime. Such as for a Stones concert in September.  So time to stop thinking a retractable dome would have retained the Rams.

I doubt that Nashville will fund a retractable hole so folks can see a small square of blue 3 games per year. They should want a daytime blackout option for all those country concerts.
Neither Allegiant Stadium nor SoFi Stadium get fully dark in the daytime, because both have translucent roofs. And SoFi's covering isn't exactly a roof, more of a canopy. More than half of U.S. Bank Stadium's roof is glass, along with a glass wall taking up nearly the entire western facade of the building.

Our dome was the last completely enclosed NFL stadium built with an entirely opaque fixed roof with zero natural light coming into the stadium. Ford Field's roof is opaque, but they get a fair amount of natural light from skylights and windows.

PostMay 03, 2023#5171

gary kreie wrote: ↑
Apr 30, 2023
DTGstl314 wrote:
gary kreie wrote: ↑
Apr 19, 2023
Right.  Neither did Georgia.  Who would have thought a Jerry Jones would convince a weak but rich Kroenke to move a team back to LA AND pay a fortune for a new stadium.  in a place that failed to get two expansion teams because taxpayers refused to contribute one dime to a new stadium.

I realize Kroenke may come out ahead financially and have his West Coast mausoleum.  But other owners who could have moved to LA and also got richer, such as the Steelers owner, didn’t do what Kroenke did. They appreciated their current fans too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Rams never had the relationship with St. Louis that the Steelers have with Pittsburgh. The Steelers originated in Pittsburgh and have played there for 90 years, and they're tied for the most Super Bowl wins of all time with the Patriots. They've had way more good seasons than bad in the modern era (since 1966). They are 100% a Pittsburgh institution. The Rams started terrible for their first 4 seasons in STL, then they won a Super Bowl, made the playoffs a few more times, and never had a winning regular season record again after 2003.

It's silly to compare the two. It's like comparing the relationship of the baseball Cardinals with St. Louis to the relationship of the Nationals with Washington, DC. 
You are making my point.  I said the Steelers owner could have moved his team to LA and got richer than he is now. Am I wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think there would have been significantly more resistance, both from the city of Pittsburgh and the Steeler fanbase, as well as from other NFL owners, if Art Rooney had decided to just up and move his team to LA in 2016. The Rams have a history in LA, one that is significantly longer than their history in St. Louis. The Steelers have a history in Pittsburgh, and literally nowhere else.
7,803
Life MemberLife Member
7,803

PostMay 03, 2023#5172

gary kreie wrote: ↑
Apr 30, 2023
STLEnginerd wrote:Is pretty cold Here in January/Feb.  Getting a super bowl in St. Louis would almost require a retractable roof.  The Dome was outdated in many ways but the Dome versus open versus retractable is a pretty arbitrary aspect that way to many people think is the main reason its outdated.
Only 5 of the 30 NFL stadiums have retractable roofs. All built before 2010 except Atlanta.  Nearly every stadium with a retractable roof keeps them closed for 2/3 of their NFL games or more. Of the newest stadiums, Kroenke didn’t bother with one. Neither did Vegas. There is something to be said for being able to make a stadium totally dark in daytime. Such as for a Stones concert in September.  So time to stop thinking a retractable dome would have retained the Rams.

I doubt that Nashville will fund a retractable hole so folks can see a small square of blue 3 games per year. They should want a daytime blackout option for all those country concerts.
I don't think concerts have blackout requirements. Taylor Swift played Atlanta this last weekend the Mercedes Benz Dome was not curtained off.
 IIRC the NCAA and the Final Four basketball is the only time they demand darkness.

U.S. Bank Stadium to Use $4.6 Million Curtains to Block Sun at 2019 Final Four
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/282 ... nal%20Four.

PostMay 03, 2023#5173

DTGstl314 wrote: ↑
May 03, 2023
gary kreie wrote: ↑
Apr 30, 2023
STLEnginerd wrote:Is pretty cold Here in January/Feb.  Getting a super bowl in St. Louis would almost require a retractable roof.  The Dome was outdated in many ways but the Dome versus open versus retractable is a pretty arbitrary aspect that way to many people think is the main reason its outdated.
Only 5 of the 30 NFL stadiums have retractable roofs. All built before 2010 except Atlanta.  Nearly every stadium with a retractable roof keeps them closed for 2/3 of their NFL games or more. Of the newest stadiums, Kroenke didn’t bother with one. Neither did Vegas. There is something to be said for being able to make a stadium totally dark in daytime. Such as for a Stones concert in September.  So time to stop thinking a retractable dome would have retained the Rams.

I doubt that Nashville will fund a retractable hole so folks can see a small square of blue 3 games per year. They should want a daytime blackout option for all those country concerts.
Neither Allegiant Stadium nor SoFi Stadium get fully dark in the daytime, because both have translucent roofs. And SoFi's covering isn't exactly a roof, more of a canopy. More than half of U.S. Bank Stadium's roof is glass, along with a glass wall taking up nearly the entire western facade of the building.

Our dome was the last completely enclosed NFL stadium built with an entirely opaque fixed roof with zero natural light coming into the stadium. Ford Field's roof is opaque, but they get a fair amount of natural light from skylights and windows.
Wrestlemania was held is daylight a few weeks ago at SoFi.
3,428
Life MemberLife Member
3,428

PostMay 04, 2023#5174

dweebe wrote:
DTGstl314 wrote: ↑
May 03, 2023
gary kreie wrote: ↑
Apr 30, 2023
 Only 5 of the 30 NFL stadiums have retractable roofs. All built before 2010 except Atlanta.  Nearly every stadium with a retractable roof keeps them closed for 2/3 of their NFL games or more. Of the newest stadiums, Kroenke didn’t bother with one. Neither did Vegas. There is something to be said for being able to make a stadium totally dark in daytime. Such as for a Stones concert in September.  So time to stop thinking a retractable dome would have retained the Rams.

I doubt that Nashville will fund a retractable hole so folks can see a small square of blue 3 games per year. They should want a daytime blackout option for all those country concerts.
Neither Allegiant Stadium nor SoFi Stadium get fully dark in the daytime, because both have translucent roofs. And SoFi's covering isn't exactly a roof, more of a canopy. More than half of U.S. Bank Stadium's roof is glass, along with a glass wall taking up nearly the entire western facade of the building.

Our dome was the last completely enclosed NFL stadium built with an entirely opaque fixed roof with zero natural light coming into the stadium. Ford Field's roof is opaque, but they get a fair amount of natural light from skylights and windows.
Wrestlemania was held is daylight a few weeks ago at SoFi.
They had no choice. If SoFi had a magic switch to make the whole stadium roof black, and the stadium dark, I think WWE would have slipped that switch. But it doesn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1,610
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,610

PostMay 04, 2023#5175

gary kreie wrote: ↑
May 04, 2023
dweebe wrote:
DTGstl314 wrote: ↑
May 03, 2023
 Neither Allegiant Stadium nor SoFi Stadium get fully dark in the daytime, because both have translucent roofs. And SoFi's covering isn't exactly a roof, more of a canopy. More than half of U.S. Bank Stadium's roof is glass, along with a glass wall taking up nearly the entire western facade of the building.

Our dome was the last completely enclosed NFL stadium built with an entirely opaque fixed roof with zero natural light coming into the stadium. Ford Field's roof is opaque, but they get a fair amount of natural light from skylights and windows.
Wrestlemania was held is daylight a few weeks ago at SoFi.
They had no choice. If SoFi had a magic switch to make the whole stadium roof black, and the stadium dark, I think WWE would have slipped that switch.  But it doesn’t.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mean, they could schedule it when it's night?
Read more posts (327 remaining)
Share