CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on EJD

[News Bot]

[5]2516269328001[/5]

By Katie Felts NewsChannel 5 Sports
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ksdk.com/sports/pro_football/article/386260/30/CVC-says-they-wont-meet-Rams-demand-to-spend-700M-on-Dome" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ksdk.com/sports/pro_football ... 0M-on-Dome</a>


ST. LOUIS (KSDK) - There's new drama in the Edward Jones Dome debate.

The St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission says it won't meet the Rams' demand to spend $700 million to upgrade the dome.

The chairman of the organization that owns the Dome says the final decision is in the hands of Gov. Jay Nixon. That means state and local taxpayers could be asked to bear some of the burden.

A similar situation occurred when Kansas City recently renovated Arrowhead Stadium. The dollars used to renovate the facility for the 2009 season aren't equal, but we were able to see how the numbers played out.

The total cost of the Arrowhead renovation was $400 million

The Chiefs took on $125 million of the bill, which was roughly 31 percent. They also agreed to pay any cost overruns in the improvement while picking up the bill for remodeled suites and upgraded office space.

Arrowhead Stadium is owned by Jackson County, so the people there took on $212.5 million of the cost, which is just over 53 percent.

The state of Missouri added the final 15 percent in tax credits, which equaled an additional $62.5 million.

The sports economist NewsChannel 5's Katie Felts spoke with says if the Rams move forward with the $700 million renovations, they will be able to compete for "big time" sporting events. The Rams believe their proposal is specifically tailored to drawing events like a future Super Bowl and NCAA tournaments.

 

[Lesson]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

Make it a 50/50 split between the taxpayers and the Rams as well as lower the lease on the Rams.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

I think the renovation idea will be dropped and a new stadium built.

The renovation takes the dome out of service, thus, costing more to the city than $700M.

Kevin Demoff has been saying from the beginning this is a process. And... this "announcement" is exactly what everyone expected. Now... the next stage of the process begins.

In the end; something new will be built and I expect a deal very similar to the one Atlanta got.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

I found this interesting and hadn't seen it. It would seem the LA Leverage has some serious holes suddenly.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-farmer-nfl-la-20130613,0,1486653.column" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/ ... 653.column</a>

NFL stadium at Chavez Ravine tough sell with Frank McCourt in the mix

Documents show the former Dodgers owner has the option to buy back Dodger Stadium land if another sports facility is built there. That doesn't bode well for an NFL deal at the site.

The improbable dream is now even more unlikely.

The romantic idea of an NFL stadium at Chavez Ravine, one that overlooks downtown Los Angeles, was already a long shot. News that Frank McCourt is in position to demand some involvement only increases the degree of difficulty.

The Los Angeles Times obtained documents Wednesday that show the unpopular former Dodgers owner has the option to buy back land if another sports facility — let's say an NFL football stadium — is built on Dodger Stadium property.

Frank McCourt could be sole landlord if NFL comes to Dodger Stadium site

That could be strike three for the NFL.

No one wants to help McCourt pull off an image makeover, and certainly not football fans in L.A.

We already know McCourt is interested in being an NFL owner. That much was clear in 2005, when he quietly pitched a proposal for a 65,000-seat football stadium in the Dodger Stadium parking lot — code name: Five Ton Gorilla — with him owning both teams.

However, it has been made clear to me — by several NFL owners and executives on multiple occasions — that they have no interest in McCourt's owning a team or being in partnership with the league. If it were to involve buying out McCourt, an already astronomical deal would become even more expensive.

That said, this is not a death knell for the Dodger Stadium concept, because the NFL has never completely given up on an option during the course of this now-18-year saga. And if the league were to toss out every deal based on the objectionable personalities of the participants, it might never do another deal.

All the league wants to know is, can a business deal be done that's attractive to the NFL?

There are merits to the Chavez Ravine site, of course. An NFL stadium on the hill is a cool concept, and one that has intrigued NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and others since then-Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley floated the idea in the mid-1990s.

Incidentally, O'Malley wanted a young Goodell to be general manager of that L.A. football team. All that went away when the city threw its weight behind the Coliseum — part of the political horse trading required to get Staples Center done — and a slighted O'Malley pulled the plug on his plan.

In recent years, as competing plans for stadiums downtown and in city of Industry have steadily lost steam, the NFL has circled back and taken another look at Dodger Stadium. In fact, the notion of putting an NFL team there might have really gotten legs had St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke been successful in his bid to buy the Dodgers.

But when Guggenheim outbid everyone for the Dodgers, and cut a deal that didn't root out McCourt, the likelihood of an NFL stadium there took a big hit. McCourt isn't the only problem. Getting the site entitled for a football stadium, including untangling all of the traffic and neighborhood issues, would take five years at a minimum, and the project would surely be a litigation magnet.

L.A. politicians are not going to be supercharged to chase yet another stadium project, especially after seeing Farmers Field, a concept they strongly supported, fall by the wayside.

A quick update on Farmers Field: That proposal lost significant momentum this year when point man Tim Leiweke left AEG. And even though billionaire Phil Anschutz said he was ready and willing to strike a deal with the NFL, the sides are drifting further apart on what they consider a fair deal to be.

Anschutz still has a lot of items on his L.A. to-do list. He needs to re-up his Staples Center lease. He'd like AEG to run the convention center. He continues to reshape the skyline. So there's little chance he'll simply throw up his hands and walk away from the NFL, something that might embarrass those politicians who went out on a limb for Farmers Field. Chances are, that proposal will just quietly fade away like so many other failed football visions.

The Industry deal is still there as it has been for five years, but nobody in the NFL is jumping at the chance to build there.

L.A. is as far away from an NFL team as it has been at any point since the Raiders and Rams left after the 1994 season.

But an L.A. with no viable options is not a good situation for the NFL — even if the nation's No. 2 market is only being used as leverage to get stadium deals done in other cities. How does the league make cities such as San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland sweat if there's not even a hint of any action in L.A.?

The NFL won't publicly drive a stake through any proposal — the league thrives on competition, so the more the merrier — and it's likely to breathe new life into some old concepts (Hello, Hollywood Park!).

As long as McCourt is entwined in the Chavez Ravine arrangement, a lot of people in the NFL will be deal dodgers.

 

[Rambitious1]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

I think the renovation idea will be dropped and a new stadium built.

The renovation takes the dome out of service, thus, costing more to the city than $700M.

Kevin Demoff has been saying from the beginning this is a process. And... this "announcement" is exactly what everyone expected. Now... the next stage of the process begins.

In the end; something new will be built and I expect a deal very similar to the one Atlanta got.

This.....

 

[bluecoconuts]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

I found this interesting and hadn't seen it. It would seem the LA Leverage has some serious holes suddenly.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-farmer-nfl-la-20130613,0,1486653.column" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/ ... 653.column</a>

NFL stadium at Chavez Ravine tough sell with Frank McCourt in the mix

Documents show the former Dodgers owner has the option to buy back Dodger Stadium land if another sports facility is built there. That doesn't bode well for an NFL deal at the site.

The improbable dream is now even more unlikely.

The romantic idea of an NFL stadium at Chavez Ravine, one that overlooks downtown Los Angeles, was already a long shot. News that Frank McCourt is in position to demand some involvement only increases the degree of difficulty.

The Los Angeles Times obtained documents Wednesday that show the unpopular former Dodgers owner has the option to buy back land if another sports facility — let's say an NFL football stadium — is built on Dodger Stadium property.

Frank McCourt could be sole landlord if NFL comes to Dodger Stadium site

That could be strike three for the NFL.

No one wants to help McCourt pull off an image makeover, and certainly not football fans in L.A.

We already know McCourt is interested in being an NFL owner. That much was clear in 2005, when he quietly pitched a proposal for a 65,000-seat football stadium in the Dodger Stadium parking lot — code name: Five Ton Gorilla — with him owning both teams.

However, it has been made clear to me — by several NFL owners and executives on multiple occasions — that they have no interest in McCourt's owning a team or being in partnership with the league. If it were to involve buying out McCourt, an already astronomical deal would become even more expensive.

That said, this is not a death knell for the Dodger Stadium concept, because the NFL has never completely given up on an option during the course of this now-18-year saga. And if the league were to toss out every deal based on the objectionable personalities of the participants, it might never do another deal.

All the league wants to know is, can a business deal be done that's attractive to the NFL?

There are merits to the Chavez Ravine site, of course. An NFL stadium on the hill is a cool concept, and one that has intrigued NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and others since then-Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley floated the idea in the mid-1990s.

Incidentally, O'Malley wanted a young Goodell to be general manager of that L.A. football team. All that went away when the city threw its weight behind the Coliseum — part of the political horse trading required to get Staples Center done — and a slighted O'Malley pulled the plug on his plan.

In recent years, as competing plans for stadiums downtown and in city of Industry have steadily lost steam, the NFL has circled back and taken another look at Dodger Stadium. In fact, the notion of putting an NFL team there might have really gotten legs had St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke been successful in his bid to buy the Dodgers.

But when Guggenheim outbid everyone for the Dodgers, and cut a deal that didn't root out McCourt, the likelihood of an NFL stadium there took a big hit. McCourt isn't the only problem. Getting the site entitled for a football stadium, including untangling all of the traffic and neighborhood issues, would take five years at a minimum, and the project would surely be a litigation magnet.

L.A. politicians are not going to be supercharged to chase yet another stadium project, especially after seeing Farmers Field, a concept they strongly supported, fall by the wayside.

A quick update on Farmers Field: That proposal lost significant momentum this year when point man Tim Leiweke left AEG. And even though billionaire Phil Anschutz said he was ready and willing to strike a deal with the NFL, the sides are drifting further apart on what they consider a fair deal to be.

Anschutz still has a lot of items on his L.A. to-do list. He needs to re-up his Staples Center lease. He'd like AEG to run the convention center. He continues to reshape the skyline. So there's little chance he'll simply throw up his hands and walk away from the NFL, something that might embarrass those politicians who went out on a limb for Farmers Field. Chances are, that proposal will just quietly fade away like so many other failed football visions.

The Industry deal is still there as it has been for five years, but nobody in the NFL is jumping at the chance to build there.

L.A. is as far away from an NFL team as it has been at any point since the Raiders and Rams left after the 1994 season.

But an L.A. with no viable options is not a good situation for the NFL — even if the nation's No. 2 market is only being used as leverage to get stadium deals done in other cities. How does the league make cities such as San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland sweat if there's not even a hint of any action in L.A.?

The NFL won't publicly drive a stake through any proposal — the league thrives on competition, so the more the merrier — and it's likely to breathe new life into some old concepts (Hello, Hollywood Park!).

As long as McCourt is entwined in the Chavez Ravine arrangement, a lot of people in the NFL will be deal dodgers.

I don't think Dodger stadium site was ever really that seriously considered. Other than the parking space, it's not very good. Other than the fact LAPD is right next door, and there's already a parking lot, the location isn't as good as it could be. AEG wanted the Downtown location to tie in with LA Live.

Also Tim Leiweke was fired, he didn't quit as the article tries to imply.

 

[nighttrain]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

The property in the City of Industry is much more attractive for an NFL team, it is on the border of LA and Orange counties
train

 

[Ram Quixote]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

I don't think Dodger stadium site was ever really that seriously considered. Other than the parking space, it's not very good. Other than the fact LAPD is right next door, and there's already a parking lot, the location isn't as good as it could be. AEG wanted the Downtown location to tie in with LA Live.

Also Tim Leiweke was fired, he didn't quit as the article tries to imply.

Back when Peter O'Malley owned the Dodgers, he proposed Chavez Ravine for a football stadium and expansion team. Then Mayor Riordan told O'Malley no thanks because they wanted the next team in the Coliseum. O'Malley then sold the Dodgers because he couldn't compete financially; getting a football team in his parking lot would have allowed him to keep the Dodgers. But the NFL always liked the location.

No one wants to deal with McCourt. He's a litigator and a snake (perhaps that's redundant).

 

[News Bot]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

Rams Owner In Direct Talks With Gov. Nixon Over Dome

[2]QzeGYwZDrTrSJrYQf5SgWhTiHFlII6kK[/2]

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI)– The St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission and the Missouri Convention and Sports Authority are set to formally announce this week they will not spend $700 million to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome.

This means talks will now focus on a possible new stadium for the Rams. The point man in those negotiations we’ve learned is Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.

Sources say all talks about a possible new stadium and who will pay for it will be taking place between Nixon and Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

So far though no direct talks between the two have taken place.
The Rams did not have a comment.

<a class="postlink" href="http://fox2now.com/2013/07/03/rams-owner-in-direct-talks-with-gov-nixon-over-dome/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://fox2now.com/2013/07/03/rams-owne ... over-dome/</a>

 

[Dagonet]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

Rams Owner In Direct Talks With Gov. Nixon Over Dome

[2]QzeGYwZDrTrSJrYQf5SgWhTiHFlII6kK[/2]

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI)– The St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission and the Missouri Convention and Sports Authority are set to formally announce this week they will not spend $700 million to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome.

This means talks will now focus on a possible new stadium for the Rams. The point man in those negotiations we’ve learned is Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.

Sources say all talks about a possible new stadium and who will pay for it will be taking place between Nixon and Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

So far though no direct talks between the two have taken place.
The Rams did not have a comment.

<a class="postlink" href="http://fox2now.com/2013/07/03/rams-owner-in-direct-talks-with-gov-nixon-over-dome/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://fox2now.com/2013/07/03/rams-owne ... over-dome/</a>

Thank you. Was going to post this. Saw it this evening on Fox 2. State has taken over for the CVC. Thank god in a way...

 

[News Bot]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

Rams Free To Leave St. Louis After 2014 Season

Updated to correct date of arbitrators' action.
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/rams-free-leave-st-louis-after-2014-season" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/ram ... 014-season</a>


The discussions between the St. Louis Rams and the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission over the Rams' place of play, the Edward Jones Dome, have come to a crossroads - one that may leave St. Louis without an NFL team after the 2014 season.

The St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission, which operates the Edward Jones Dome, officially rejected today the upgrade plan selected by a panel of arbitrators, which mirrored one proposed by the Rams.

Kitty Ratcliffe, the president of the CVC, said the fact that the proposal relied 100 percent on public funding was a non-starter for St. Louis city, St. Louis County, and the state.

"There are a lot of needs that they have for the people who live here, and spending close to $900 million solely to have 10 football games wasn't deemed to be very prudent by anyone," she said. In addition, the Rams' proposal would have required extensive construction at the Dome, reducing the number of conventions to CVC could book.

A quick recap of how we got here:

The lease signed by the Rams when they moved to St. Louis in 1995 required the CVC to keep the Edward Jones Dome in the top tier of football stadiums in the country. That same clause allows the team to leave after 2014 if that doesn't happen.

In February 2012, the CVC unveiled a $124 million plan, which included more club seats and windows. The Rams rejected that option.

Three months later, the Rams unveiled their own plan, which called for $700 million in upgrades. The CVC rejected that version, and unveiled a counter-proposal in August.

After negotiations between the parties failed, the matter went in front of a panel of three arbitrators.
In February, the arbitrators determined that upgrades of the magnitude outlined by the Rams would be required to make the Dome among the top eight in the league.

After that, the next move was up to the CVC, which had two options:

Accept the plan, keeping the Rams in the Edward Jones Dome until the end of their lease in 2025.
Reject the plan, allowing the Rams to terminate their long-term lease after the 2014 season and leave.

Today's decision was in line with comments made by Greg Smith, the CVC's attorney, back in February.

So what's next? Smith said it's likely the Rams will switch to a year-to-year lease on March 15, 2015 - and that "The Rams decision with regard to its plans beyond that date is of course up to them."

The Rams did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on their next step. Ratcliffe says anyone who is interested can present a stadium proposal to the Rams.

 

[News Bot]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

Letter from the CVC to the Rams

<a class="postlink" href="http://localtvktvi.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/rams_response_letter_7-3-131.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://localtvktvi.files.wordpress.com/ ... -3-131.pdf</a>

 

[ljramsfan]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

Rams Owner In Direct Talks With Gov. Nixon Over Dome

[2]QzeGYwZDrTrSJrYQf5SgWhTiHFlII6kK[/2]

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI)– The St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission and the Missouri Convention and Sports Authority are set to formally announce this week they will not spend $700 million to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome.

This means talks will now focus on a possible new stadium for the Rams. The point man in those negotiations we’ve learned is Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.

Sources say all talks about a possible new stadium and who will pay for it will be taking place between Nixon and Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

So far though no direct talks between the two have taken place.
The Rams did not have a comment.

<a class="postlink" href="http://fox2now.com/2013/07/03/rams-owner-in-direct-talks-with-gov-nixon-over-dome/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://fox2now.com/2013/07/03/rams-owne ... over-dome/</a>

Thank you. Was going to post this. Saw it this evening on Fox 2. State has taken over for the CVC. Thank god in a way...

A little trivia. The shot of Bradford on the field was his first pass in the NFL (preseason, mind you). I was there for that

 

[CGI_Ram]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-kroenke-nixon-need-to-put-deal-together/article_d467389d-c66b-5373-ac4a-96319a723433.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 23433.html</a>

3 hours ago • BY BERNIE MIKLASZ bjmiklasz@post-dispatch.com

About Rams owner Stan Kroenke, stadiums, the CVC, and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon: Same as it ever was.

The Rams have little or no real leverage. There is no credible, NFL-approved stadium plan in Los Angeles. The league controls the LA market and wants to eventually collect lucrative fees to put an expansion team (or teams) there. The Jacksonville Jaguars have staked out London as a potential long-term destination.

Kroenke will have to make a deal here, and I believe that will happen. There needs to be a long-term stadium plan for St. Louis. Kroenke, Nixon and the NFL will eventually hammer out an agreement. But nothing substantive will occur until Kroenke conveys a sincere desire to participate in the project.

 

[Yamahopper]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

I wouldn't stick 700m in that dump either. Even a major renovation and it's still a dump. That was neve rgoing to happen
The CYC really don't want the Rams because it complicates it's convention business. That's where they make their money.
The Rams pay very little to play there. They have a fair income stream from it, better when they start selling it out again.

So it's up to Stan and the Gov. to work out a deal if a new stadium is in the works. It's all about the $$$$$$ at this point.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Re: CVC says they won't meet Rams' demand to spend $700M on

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-kroenke-nixon-need-to-put-deal-together/article_d467389d-c66b-5373-ac4a-96319a723433.html

3 hours ago • BY BERNIE MIKLASZ bjmiklasz@post-dispatch.com

About Rams owner Stan Kroenke, stadiums, the CVC, and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon: Same as it ever was.

The Rams have little or no real leverage. There is no credible, NFL-approved stadium plan in Los Angeles. The league controls the LA market and wants to eventually collect lucrative fees to put an expansion team (or teams) there. The Jacksonville Jaguars have staked out London as a potential long-term destination.

Kroenke will have to make a deal here, and I believe that will happen. There needs to be a long-term stadium plan for St. Louis. Kroenke, Nixon and the NFL will eventually hammer out an agreement. But nothing substantive will occur until Kroenke conveys a sincere desire to participate in the project.

I disagree that the Rams have no leverage, but I do think that they'll just build a new stadium in St Louis. Hopefully with the right color seats.