New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Well, that's not exactly what you said.. you said they "dislike" doing it. My point is... they have no choice. When the winds shift, they must do it.

They do dislike doing it, that doesn't mean they don't do it when they have to, as I said. It just means they don't jump to do it if they don't think they'll need to. I don't like doing a lot of things, that doesn't mean I don't them, it just means I don't do them unless I have to.

I agree it's less loud... but it's still pretty loud. Pilots are constantly throttling up on landings. See the description in the link below regarding how challenging it is to land an aircarft at LAX.


I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine you'd throttle up when you're about to touch down, not 3 miles out. I'm sure it's not easy to land at any airport, let alone LAX, but looking at the incidents, there's really nothing worth noting. The last "arriving to LA" incident was 9/11, which is included because three of the flights were scheduled to land at LAX. Otherwise runway incidents have been due to pilot error and usually on taxing and take off (going to the wrong runway, etc). The last incident to happen during landing at LAX was in 1991 and due to tower error. There have been 16 total accidents at LAX, and there has never been an airplane to fall short short of the runway. The only time an accident happened not physically at LAX was in 1979 during takeoff when a small two engine plane had one of their propellers lose power, and they tried to land in the ocean and ended up sinking too fast.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/airport/airport.php?id=LAX

Well, I hope they clear it! The point I'm making is that it looks like it will be closer to a major airport than any other stadium... at least NFL stadium.

I've heard they wont have any issue clearing it, and that they may not actually need one (but I don't know how true that is) because of sinking it into the ground. The FAA hasn't gotten anything yet because plans aren't finalized yet.

As far as distance, it's about the same I think as Levi's stadium it's also close (see attached photo at the bottom) and it's right in the path of flights taking off, which makes it louder. They got their clearance just fine, and the FAA flight ban doesn't count for planes taking off or landing apparently. As long as the stadium is short enough, which again sinking it makes it more than short enough, they shouldn't have any issues


Well, that's your opinion.

Any airport is dangerous, I like looking out at the EJD when we fly over it when I'm traveling to and from St Louis, there have been times there's a storm and it's pretty choppy. There's always something that could go wrong, and we could crash right into it. For a plane to fall 3 miles short of the runway, there would need to be such a long list of fuck ups, I just don't see it being an issue. Again look over the safety issue at LAX that I posted above.




Levis Stadium compared to the airport. Again this is in the flight path for planes taking off.

2wqy16h.jpg
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Yeah - I wouldn't really argue that but I also think down in there is a human that has a warm spot for his home state. And I got the feeling that all the crap about people wanting Khan to buy the team and the disrespect I sensed from many in Missouri saddened him a bit. Unfortunately, with many people, sadness eventually gives way to anger and I just hope he is not going to do something out of spite.

I know what you mean. But Stan owns so many teams and has so much outside of MO that it was inevitable. IIRC, Khan had his business close to STL, was a U of I and Rams supporter, and didn't have rumors of wanting to move the team. Rumors you have to admit may very well be true. So he's got to have some awareness that his own aloofness has to share some of the blame. That's his PR problem. He just doesn't have any words to judge him by, and the ones that about there are overwhelmed by his actions. I believe he is well aware of all this, and his lack of response is shows about how much he cares about this stuff. I suspect if his plan is to get a new stadium in ST Louis, then he's quite happy, because what he is doing is succeeding. Perhaps he is upset at the attitude around STL, but I just don't see him being that clueless as to not fathom why that is. I suspect whatever he does will be based solely on what he thinks is the greatest level of profit. But I can't figure out what goes on in my neighbors head, so who knows what goes on in Stan Kroenke's lol.:)
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,810
Name
Stu
LA has some major problems if they can't get water because of the toilets at a football stadium.
Yeah - don't think that is an issue. Besides, the development is going to have reflecting ponds and a couple lakes. I'm guessing you are joking but as screwed up as LAs water issues are, this isn't anything to worry about.
 

tonyl711

Starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
863
OK - this airport noise talk is pretty ridiculous honestly. I grew up in LA and have flown in and out of LA many times. I have also gone to airport park in Portland on several occasions during lunch breaks and with my wife to watch planes take off and land. It is kind of a fun way to sit back and drink a glass of wine or eat lunch.

From LAX - I can't remember a single time where I took off from west to east. It is always over the ocean. I also can't recall ever landing from the west. My guess is that the aviation guy misspoke a bit in saying that planes have to take off and land into the wind. I really think he was talking about when there is substantial wind - which BTW is pretty rare where LAX is situated. Maybe during the Santa Anas.

Also, anyone who has ever flown knows the difference in noise level between take-off and landing. The plane is virtually in glide mode until it has to slow down AFTER landing. Almost all the planes flying over Inglewood would be landing.

I bring up the Portland airport park because aside from when the fighter jets are using their runways, you have about two seconds when you can't carry on a conversation. And that is AT the airport.

The terrorism thing might be real but I would guess that it would not be any more of a threat with Inglewood than with any other area of LA. In fact, I would say that it would be LESS likely. What happens well before the plane lands? Everyone is told to sit down and belt up. Anyone refusing to do that would be taken down well before the final approach. This is not 2001.
I lived about 5 miles from an airport for the first 21 years of my life and I can tell you the noise is and will be a problem, planes aren't loud when they are up high, but bring them down to 1000 feet and the noise is deafening.
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
So someone just text me that Stan is looking at buying the Broncos? Is there any truth to this? Even rumors?
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
So someone just text me that Stan is looking at buying the Broncos? Is there any truth to this? Even rumors?

I think these rumors come up because the Broncos' owner (Pat Bowlen) is having some health problems. They say he's setting up control of the team as a trust to make sure it stays in the family, but who knows what the children would want to do with it. He (Kroenke) might have his chance to complete his control over the Denver market when Pat Bowlen passes.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,810
Name
Stu
I think these rumors come up because the Broncos' owner (Pat Bowlen) is having some health problems. They say he's setting up control of the team as a trust to make sure it stays in the family, but who knows what the children would want to do with it. He (Kroenke) might have his chance to complete his control over the Denver market when Pat Bowlen passes.
Yeah - they were also business associates on their arena football team. Might be just trying to connect some dots but there may be something to it. Who knows?
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Yeah - they were also business associates on their arena football team. Might be just trying to connect some dots but there may be something to it. Who knows?

Maybe, but the team is not expected to be put up for sale. Now once one of the other family memebers takes over, who knows....But I don't think Bowlen will sell as long as he's alive.

"The Broncos' ownership has been placed in a personal trust set up by Bowlen years ago that now is controlled by non-family members, with Ellis owning final say over team matters. Bowlen hopes to pass on ownership of the team to one of his seven children when they are ready, and the team is not expected to be put up for sale."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...wn-amid-fight-with-alzheimer-s-112615588.html
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Maybe, but the team is not expected to be put up for sale. Now once one of the other family memebers takes over, who knows....But I don't think Bowlen will sell as long as he's alive.

"The Broncos' ownership has been placed in a personal trust set up by Bowlen years ago that now is controlled by non-family members, with Ellis owning final say over team matters. Bowlen hopes to pass on ownership of the team to one of his seven children when they are ready, and the team is not expected to be put up for sale."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...wn-amid-fight-with-alzheimer-s-112615588.html

Could be something similar to what Georgia did, and then they may sell if they don't want to. But its very doubtful its anytime soon, and I don't think Stan would want to wait that long.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
video or 2 in link


http://fox2now.com/2015/03/03/new-developments-in-riverfront-stadium-proposal/

ST. LOUIS (KTVI) – New signs of growing momentum toward building a new riverfront football stadium and keeping the Rams in St. Louis emerged, Tuesday.

A team source told FOX 2 that even with all the news about the Rams possibly moving to Los Angeles, ticket sales and season ticket renewals for 2015 were ahead of 2014.

There was more news “hidden” in a new set of stadium renderings just released by the stadium task force, led by former Anheuser-Busch executive, Dave Peacock.

The changes from the 1st drawings to the latest are hard to notice at first glance but there’s at least 1 building left standing that wasn’t previously there: Shady Jack’srestaurant and bar on Broadway.

“I announced everything this morning [to the staff] that ‘we’re here. We’re here to stay’,” said owner, Jack Larrison.

Shady Jack’s, an internationally famous biker bar was to become a parking lot.

“Even at some of the meetings I said, ‘I’m not an obstructionist, I just want to go forward’. The evolution of progress is going forward. I just want to be part of it. It looks like we’re going to be,” Larrison said.

The number of seats in the new renderings is down to 62,000 from 64,000.

The real “story” may have to do with the prominent new yellow seats, seen in a field view.

They represent “club seats” extending down to the field. There are also more open areas around the concessions stands with views of the field.

Those changes came from the Rams, task force members said. Rams C.O.O., Kevin Demoff, had become more and more involved in the St. Louis stadium process, they said
.

There’s another feature from the renderings.

Beyond the stadium there’s an extension of park space and the Riverfront Trail, north from the Arch, over the water and around the close to $1 billion dollar stadium.

The idea has the endorsement of the Great Rivers Greenway organization, which has been working for years to connect people to the Mississippi, Missouri, and Meramec Rivers.

A stadium has never been part of the vision until now.

Great Rivers Greenway Executive Director, Susan Trautman, said she spoke with Peacock about the project for the 1st time Tuesday. He asked that her organization be involved in the process moving forward.

“If the stadium happens that’s terrific. If it doesn’t, we’ve got the conversation going,” Trautman said. “We want a place that you want to be; that you want to pack up a picnic with your kids and come down to the river and see what’s happening – music, theater, art, and all the things that draw people together and bring us together as a community…football would work,” she laughed.

Sources admitted the stadium was still not close to becoming reality.

But the project is about more than football now. The Rams are involved. Momentum continues to grow.

The fact that the Rams had something to do with the changes and that Demoff is very much involved with this says a lot to me. If the financing part gets taken care of (which I believe it will), then I think they will stay. End of story.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Senator Silvey Throws the Red Challenge Flag on St. Louis Radio Host’s Open Letter

Dear Mr. Karraker,

Thank you for your email dated 3/3/2015 where you graciously offered to help me “fact check” my capitol report on SB 460 requiring a vote of the General Assembly or the people to issue or extend bonds backed by the state of Missouri on any project.

Due to the current situation in St. Louis surrounding the potential departure of the Rams, and the plan put forth to build a new stadium in the hopes they won’t leave, this issue has become oversimplified to be about whether we should or should not spend state resources to assist in building a new stadium. For you, a sports commentator, I see the benefit of reducing the argument in that way as it riles up your audience and therefore pleases advertisers. However, you have completely missed the point.

The question before the legislature in SB 460 is not about a stadium in St. Louis. It is about checks and balances. It is about whether one man, in this case the Governor, has or should have the ability to put the other 6 million Missourians in debt without a vote of the people or their representatives. This argument could just as easily be about a state level incentive package to build a corporate world headquarters, or a racetrack, or a new building at Mizzou.

The first of your “fact checks” is that I stated “the Rams organization announced its intention of leaving.” You assert in your letter, “In fact, the Rams have not announced their intention to leave, and have never asked for a stadium.” Perhaps I should have chosen my words differently. You are correct that the Rams organization has not formally announced an intention to leave.

However, you insult the intelligence of all Missourians to suggest that just because the Rams haven’t held a team press conference yet, that this isn’t the reason for the stadium proposal. As a member of the media, I would assume that you are familiar with the numerous press accounts that indicate the owner’s apparent desire to leave. Look no further than an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on 1/16/2015 with the headline: NFL Exec: St. Louis must build new stadium to keep NFL. The first line of the article is “Local planners must build a new football stadium here, or St. Louis will not hold on to its franchise, a key National Football League executive said Thursday.” Further, it goes on to say, “Grubman confirmed, for the first time by a league official, that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is indeed ‘looking’ elsewhere.”

The reality is, according to the same article, “Two years ago, the team won a lengthy battle over upgrades required by its lease at the Jones Dome. An arbitration panel ruled in favor of the Rams’ request for publicly financed renovations worth perhaps $700 million. Dome authorities declined, giving the Rams the option to go year-to-year on their lease.” Therefore, due to local authorities not fulfilling their end of the lease by being willing to invest what is needed in required improvements, the Rams are free to begin looking at other options. To imply that they aren’t is irresponsible.

Secondly, you question the need for a vote. Specifically you ask “Question; why are you there? Don’t we elect officials to make these decisions for us? And where does your idea stop? If we’re going to vote on each and every state expenditure, do we really need elected officials in Jefferson City? If we do as you propose, shouldn’t the people simply vote on every expenditure?”

On this, I must conclude that you haven’t read SB 460 at all or were in such a rush to judgment to rile up your listeners that you didn’t read it clearly. The bill clearly states “legislative or voter approval.” Yes, we do elect officials to make those decisions for us. They are called Senators and Representatives. I have never proposed putting every expenditure to a vote of the people. In fact, in order to give any future bond proposals the best chance of passage, I provided flexibility by allowing either the legislature or the public at large to have a vote on the proposal. That way, the governor could decide to whom to make the case. Either make it to the people directly, or to their elected representatives. If the case is a good one, surely logic will prevail and the necessary votes will be secured.

Finally, you take issue with my assertion that without SB 460, “we’d be allowing one individual to unilaterally put Missouri millions of dollars in debt.” On this point you make the case that the Rams provide a net benefit to the state. However, again you are missing the point of the proposal. Whether or not the Rams provide a net benefit to the state and are therefore worthy of the state taking on an additional $200 million in debt is exactly the debate that needs to be had. The question about whether the issuance of bonds is putting the state in debt, on the other hand, is not debatable. The very definition of a bond is debt investment to be paid in the future.

In 2005, the KC Chiefs and Royals came to Jefferson City and asked for the state to pay for part of the renovations to Arrowhead and Kaufman stadiums using money from the Athletes and Entertainers tax. Ultimately, their case for state funding was not convincing and I along with 84 of my colleagues expressed written opposition to the proposal. At the end of the day, it did not pass and the voters in Jackson County voted to raise their own local taxes to pay for the renovations. I mention this to illustrate that a debate was had, facts were presented, both sides made a case and ultimately the people’s representatives made a decision. All I ask is that the St. Louis Rams stadium proposal, and all future projects seeking the support of the state taxpayers, are treated the same.

http://www.senate.mo.gov/media/15info/Silvey/releases/030415.html
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Senator Silvey Throws the Red Challenge Flag on St. Louis Radio Host’s Open Letter

Dear Mr. Karraker,

Thank you for your email dated 3/3/2015 where you graciously offered to help me “fact check” my capitol report on SB 460 requiring a vote of the General Assembly or the people to issue or extend bonds backed by the state of Missouri on any project.

Due to the current situation in St. Louis surrounding the potential departure of the Rams, and the plan put forth to build a new stadium in the hopes they won’t leave, this issue has become oversimplified to be about whether we should or should not spend state resources to assist in building a new stadium. For you, a sports commentator, I see the benefit of reducing the argument in that way as it riles up your audience and therefore pleases advertisers. However, you have completely missed the point.

The question before the legislature in SB 460 is not about a stadium in St. Louis. It is about checks and balances. It is about whether one man, in this case the Governor, has or should have the ability to put the other 6 million Missourians in debt without a vote of the people or their representatives. This argument could just as easily be about a state level incentive package to build a corporate world headquarters, or a racetrack, or a new building at Mizzou.

The first of your “fact checks” is that I stated “the Rams organization announced its intention of leaving.” You assert in your letter, “In fact, the Rams have not announced their intention to leave, and have never asked for a stadium.” Perhaps I should have chosen my words differently. You are correct that the Rams organization has not formally announced an intention to leave.

However, you insult the intelligence of all Missourians to suggest that just because the Rams haven’t held a team press conference yet, that this isn’t the reason for the stadium proposal. As a member of the media, I would assume that you are familiar with the numerous press accounts that indicate the owner’s apparent desire to leave. Look no further than an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on 1/16/2015 with the headline: NFL Exec: St. Louis must build new stadium to keep NFL. The first line of the article is “Local planners must build a new football stadium here, or St. Louis will not hold on to its franchise, a key National Football League executive said Thursday.” Further, it goes on to say, “Grubman confirmed, for the first time by a league official, that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is indeed ‘looking’ elsewhere.”

The reality is, according to the same article, “Two years ago, the team won a lengthy battle over upgrades required by its lease at the Jones Dome. An arbitration panel ruled in favor of the Rams’ request for publicly financed renovations worth perhaps $700 million. Dome authorities declined, giving the Rams the option to go year-to-year on their lease.” Therefore, due to local authorities not fulfilling their end of the lease by being willing to invest what is needed in required improvements, the Rams are free to begin looking at other options. To imply that they aren’t is irresponsible.

Secondly, you question the need for a vote. Specifically you ask “Question; why are you there? Don’t we elect officials to make these decisions for us? And where does your idea stop? If we’re going to vote on each and every state expenditure, do we really need elected officials in Jefferson City? If we do as you propose, shouldn’t the people simply vote on every expenditure?”

On this, I must conclude that you haven’t read SB 460 at all or were in such a rush to judgment to rile up your listeners that you didn’t read it clearly. The bill clearly states “legislative or voter approval.” Yes, we do elect officials to make those decisions for us. They are called Senators and Representatives. I have never proposed putting every expenditure to a vote of the people. In fact, in order to give any future bond proposals the best chance of passage, I provided flexibility by allowing either the legislature or the public at large to have a vote on the proposal. That way, the governor could decide to whom to make the case. Either make it to the people directly, or to their elected representatives. If the case is a good one, surely logic will prevail and the necessary votes will be secured.

Finally, you take issue with my assertion that without SB 460, “we’d be allowing one individual to unilaterally put Missouri millions of dollars in debt.” On this point you make the case that the Rams provide a net benefit to the state. However, again you are missing the point of the proposal. Whether or not the Rams provide a net benefit to the state and are therefore worthy of the state taking on an additional $200 million in debt is exactly the debate that needs to be had. The question about whether the issuance of bonds is putting the state in debt, on the other hand, is not debatable. The very definition of a bond is debt investment to be paid in the future.

In 2005, the KC Chiefs and Royals came to Jefferson City and asked for the state to pay for part of the renovations to Arrowhead and Kaufman stadiums using money from the Athletes and Entertainers tax. Ultimately, their case for state funding was not convincing and I along with 84 of my colleagues expressed written opposition to the proposal. At the end of the day, it did not pass and the voters in Jackson County voted to raise their own local taxes to pay for the renovations. I mention this to illustrate that a debate was had, facts were presented, both sides made a case and ultimately the people’s representatives made a decision. All I ask is that the St. Louis Rams stadium proposal, and all future projects seeking the support of the state taxpayers, are treated the same.

http://www.senate.mo.gov/media/15info/Silvey/releases/030415.html
It's not fair for 1 person, the governor to approve a stadium. The public should have a vote. #larams lol
 

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
In 1993 the Missouri Legislature was asked to approve bonds for a St. Louis football stadium which included a provision that allowed the Governor of Missouri power to extend the bonds unilaterally. The Missouri Legislature said yes.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
In 1993 the Missouri Legislature was asked to approve bonds for a St. Louis football stadium which included a provision that allowed the Governor of Missouri power to extend the bonds unilaterally. The Missouri Legislature said yes.
Good info, thanks. I mainly posted that because this senator clearly has an agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.