New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

Yeah - I'm not going to read through it all again but if I recall right, it dealt mostly with details specific to the Dome.

They supposedly have some measurables for parking and seating and such but I think that is more to do with hosting SBs. You'd have to connect the dots that top tier included hosting SBs. Maybe it does - maybe it doesn't. Still, I'm going to guess the NFL has some basic benchmarks in several categories for measuring stadium levels and most of that no doubt has to do with ability to generate funds and produce prestige for the owner.

not sure how Superbowls come into play - the requirements for hosting one have changed since arbitration

 

[dieterbrock]

If anything, the dog and pony show was to push San Diego and Oakland into putting offers on the table. And it's worked magically.

Love the new Avi!

 

[RamFan503]

not sure how Superbowls come into play - the requirements for hosting one have changed since arbitration

Have they? Actually not sure that is the case. Do you have that info handy?

Even still, isn't that like saying that top tier has been changed since '95? Do they go back to that time frame or do they use the time the proposal is accepted or do they use the date arbitration was ruled upon? If you use the date arbitration was ruled upon, what time frame is acceptable in determining how long they have in order to come forth with a top tier proposal?

And I didn't say hosting SBs WAS a requirement for top tier - only that the parking requirements and seating and such were requirements for hosting a SB.

You'd have to connect the dots that top tier included hosting SBs. Maybe it does - maybe it doesn't.

If Seattle is considered top tier (which I believe it is) then parking is clearly not an issue because there essentially is none or at least I haven't seen it. So Seattle is an example of a top tier stadium that can't host a SB.

Find the top tier stadiums and what makes them so. I can't find any kind of official list though nor the criteria that makes them the best.

What's that? Clear as mud you say?

 

[The Ripper]

not sure how Superbowls come into play - the requirements for hosting one have changed since arbitration

Top tier comes down to revenues. Concessions, sight lines for premium seats, seat size, technology, luxury boxes, club seating, parking and yes Super Bowls. The Rams lease didn't specify so it was up to the Arbitrators to do stadium visits to determine the standard. The requirements for Super Bowls change all the time but the cities know whats required for both the stadium and for what the city provides. Minneapolis decided to not use the requirements so they were initially denied but they did end up following the requirements. Houston agreed to the requirements but they're having issues with actually completing the guaranteed upgrades.

 

[iced]

Have they? Actually not sure that is the case. Do you have that info handy?

Even still, isn't that like saying that top tier has been changed since '95? Do they go back to that time frame or do they use the time the proposal is accepted or do they use the date arbitration was ruled upon? If you use the date arbitration was ruled upon, what time frame is acceptable in determining how long they have in order to come forth with a top tier proposal?

And I didn't say hosting SBs WAS a requirement for top tier - only that the parking requirements and seating and such were requirements for hosting a SB.

Was just pointing out the change - i remember hearing the "new requirements" think last year (yep January '14)

http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2014/06/09/super-bowl-2018-requirements-minnesota-vikings

not gonna list them all - over 160 lol

another link (both have links to the actual 153 page document)

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/6/8/5790704/nfl-super-bowl-demands-host-cities-minneapolis

just a small excerpt

What the NFL wants

• Free police escorts for team owners
• Use of Presidential suites at the city's top hotels at no-cost
• 35,000 free parking spaces
• All revenue from ticket sales to the game
• Free curbside parking at the NFL House, a "high-end, exclusive drop-in hospitality facility for our most valued and influential guests to meet, unwind, network and conduct business."
• Local police dedicated to anti-counterfeit enforcement, provided at no cost
• Installation of ATM machines at the stadium that accept NFL preferred credit and debit cards, along with the removal of ATMs that "conflict with preferred payment services."
• Two top quality bowling venues for an NFL celebrity bowling event
• Portable cell phone towers
• Free promotional space from local newspapers and radio stations for the "NFL Experience" in the month before the game
• Creation of "clean zones" around the stadium and the hotel for NFL execs that prevent "certain activities" as well as suspend new and existing permits for those activities
• Free access to three top golf courses in the months before the game
• Exemption from state, county and municipal taxes

 

[bluecoconuts]

ill agree, i have no doubt there will be a team there next year. i just think it would have been smarter to go the expansion route before it came to all this, they had to see it coming.

This is likely exactly what they wanted, LA is a market they want/need to get right, so they would rather let an established fanbase into the market than just trying to start new. Yes LA hasn't had a home team for 20 years, but a great deal of the population still roots for previous LA teams, the Rams Raiders and Chargers.. Chargers are by far the least represented, which is why I'm a little shocked the Chargers are willing to go into LA with the Raiders. Obviously they feel threatened by the Rams presence, but the Raiders are going to be just as bad. Either way Chargers are going to be second/third fiddle in their own damn city.

same question i asked before, what stadiums besides Jerry world are better?

If we're going off top tier, I believe Levi's, the new Vikings/Falcons stadiums, Lucas Oil, Arizona's and a few others, Metlife possibly as well. Being new doesn't automatically make a stadium top tier. Granted it's a big part of the equation, but it's more about what the stadium offers, the features and what makes them cutting edge. How the NFL can use them for various events. That's part of why Inglewood can get extra boosts over Carson, there is more flexibility for the NFL in terms of what they can do with the stadium.

There isn't much known about the top tier requirements, but there is a little.

The Dome must be deemed first tier in each of 15 categories, though the lease doesn't spell exactly what would make each of those areas first tier. The categories include:

• Fan amenities, such as box suites, club seats, lounges and any other public areas, including elevators and escalators.

• Technical areas, such as scoreboards, lighting, sound, computer and emergency systems, as well "advertising infrastructure in, on and around the facilities."

• Revenue-generating facilities, such as food-preparation areas, shops, concession stalls and box offices.

• Behind-the-scenes areas related to the team, such as locker rooms, coaches' offices and training facilities.

So the Riverfront stadium could be top tier in a few of these items, without knowing the nitty gritty details, we don't know. We also know that 66,000 seats, 120 suites and 6,400 club seats qualified as first tier.. If 62,000 seats qualify we don't know, and how many suits/club seats/boxes the Riverfront stadium has I don't believe they have announced. I have a feeling they lowered the number compared to the EJD though to be honest.

For the other categories it's anyone's guess. However articles have seem to indicate that the Riverfront stadium would not qualify as a first tier stadium (hence the articles saying the NFL is going to be careful about setting a precedence that's not favorable to themselves).

Was just pointing out the change - i remember hearing the "new requirements" think last year (yep January '14)

http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2014/06/09/super-bowl-2018-requirements-minnesota-vikings

not gonna list them all - over 160 lol

another link (both have links to the actual 153 page document)

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/6/8/5790704/nfl-super-bowl-demands-host-cities-minneapolis

just a small excerpt

Those are more just things for the city to do in order to get a Super Bowl, not the type of stadium that they need to host it. There are plenty of cities that could meet those requirements that the NFL wont play in, because the stadium isn't what they want. At any rate, St Louis doesn't have nearly 35,000 parking spots for the Riverfront Stadium if I recall correctly.

 

[tonyl711]

Sorry but I can't agree that the clause is not an issue going forward. It may be convenient to assume so but there will be some level of evaluation based on the previous lease. I ALMOST guarantee it.

But that wasn't what Riper or I were referring to in that specific part (well, at least me). I'm referring to the relocation aspect of the CVC not living up to the top tier. Free to relocate or negotiate with other parties kicked in BECAUSE of the top tier clause not being met. And I'm not saying that the relocation wording means that he is free to move from the St Louis NFL market. That remains to be seen as the NFL still has to make a decision. I would say that legally it allows him to do so but not much more than that. It would only come in likely if Stan decided to try and go rogue - which I think we all doubt he would.

if thats the case then all St Louis would have to do is upgrade the dome to keep the Rams still, but thats not an option anymore, arbitration put an end to the top tier thing.

 

[The Ripper]

if thats the case then all St Louis would have to do is upgrade the dome to keep the Rams still, but thats not an option anymore, arbitration put an end to the top tier thing.

All St Louis has to do is make sure the revenues are sufficient and rock solid for the long term to keep the NFL in St Louis. Keeping the Rams may require more revenues but that's the key not the league or the other owners.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Anyway, back to recent news...

Seems that the temporary venue stadiums are clearing out.. However it's making the move back to LA more hazy..

Rose Bowl: Out
Stub Hub: Out
Angels Stadium: Outish.. They have said they are very likely out, due to scheduling issues, especially if it's for a long time (Carson)
Dodgers Stadium: Same as Angels stadium, scheduling issues essentially shut the door there.
Coliseum: In (so far) unless it's the Raiders.. Have supposedly said they would love the Rams there, haven't said anything about the Chargers, but assume it's okay... Will only accept one team, no word on how length could change things (again, meaning if the NFL selects Carson)

There's the problem though, two teams and only one venue.. I don't know any other venue that's potentially viable either. Does that factor into the decision process for the venue at all?

Obviously if they pick Inglewood they don't have issues of finding a second venue. The Rams would play in the Coliseum and the Chargers/Raiders join them when the stadium is completed assuming they can't get anything worked out in their home markets. Of course then the issue is that the Rams got a head start, and it's not really an equal partnership, and the other owner may not like that.

If they select Carson they could move the Raiders down there and keep the Chargers in San Diego, but that wont likely fly since Chargers fans know that the Raiders can't afford the stadium alone. Also gives the Raiders a head start over the Chargers, which Spanos is sure to not like since he's paying for more of the stadium and leading that charge.

They could also move the Chargers down with the guise that the Raiders are staying in Oakland, and if anything that would be better because the Chargers will need all the help they can get attracting fans. However what happens if Oakland pulls out a deal to keep the Raiders? Davis seems sincere in staying there, and can the NFL really trust Spanos to make LA work, despite being a bit cash strapped?

I don't see how the NFL could allow teams to stay home while their stadium is being built to make sure everyone goes there at the same time, and they can't really put off LA for another year.. Perhaps they can pay off one of the MLB teams to let a team stay there, but who pays for that?

 

[RamBill]

Bernie Miklasz joined Kevin Wheeler to talk about Judge Frawley’s stadium ruling, why it’s a good thing for the St. Louis stadium task force and St. Louis Rams fans.

Listen to Bernie Talk Stadium Ruling

 

[dbrooks25]

I got this from a poster at Rams Talk:

Tickets remaining for the three potential LA franchises:

YIKES @ San Diego!
****EDIT****
The dude got his info from Stubhub. Well that was very misleading. Nothing to see here, carry on.

 

[ramfaninsd]

I got this from a poster at Rams Talk:

Tickets remaining for the three potential LA franchises:

YIKES @ San Diego!

those are stubhub tickets for resale, tickets that have already been purchased and i pointed out at rams talk that san diego has nearly sold out all home games.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I got this from a poster at Rams Talk:

Tickets remaining for the three potential LA franchises:

YIKES @ San Diego!
****EDIT****
The dude got his info from Stubhub. Well that was very misleading. Nothing to see here, carry on.

Yeah, I was gonna say I thought San Diego announced they were actually selling them faster than normal. In this case, more is probably better.

 

[ramfaninsd]

Yeah, I was gonna say I thought San Diego announced they were actually selling them faster than normal. In this case, more is probably better.

the st louis biz journal reported today that 8,200 tickets remain unsold for the rams home opener. yes they have sold a lot but that is a lot of chargers tickets up for resale.

 

[The Ripper]

I got this from a poster at Rams Talk:

Tickets remaining for the three potential LA franchises:

YIKES @ San Diego!
****EDIT****
The dude got his info from Stubhub. Well that was very misleading. Nothing to see here, carry on.

the st louis biz journal reported today that 8,200 tickets remain unsold for the rams home opener. yes they have sold a lot but that is a lot of chargers tickets up for resale.

Not a reliable source. Does his handmade chart include parking? What about pricing? Are the tickets at or above face or below face?

 

[Irish]

A little off the current Meta topic,but it is amazing to me how St. Louis is being portrayed both locally and nationally in almost every arena. Only St. Louis Rams fans have to put up with a portion of their fan base actively hoping and working to have the team leave the freaking city.

Team historical data over the last 10 years doesn't matter, an alienating owner doesn't matter, a dump of a stadium in a less than desirable part of town doesn't matter: the meta of the national narrative dictates that St. Louis doesn't deserve the Rams.

San Diego is treated like the unfortunate child, with crappy parents who want to rip the team from the city and its an outrage. Oakland is treated with general ambivalence: they are almost the "also-rans" of this. But St. Louis is tasked with defending our city in almost every discussion.

It's mean spirited and I hate it.

 

[The Ripper]

A little off the current Meta topic,but it is amazing to me how St. Louis is being portrayed both locally and nationally in almost every arena. Only St. Louis Rams fans have to put up with a portion of their fan base actively hoping and working to have the team leave the freaking city.

Team historical data over the last 10 years doesn't matter, an alienating owner doesn't matter, a dump of a stadium in a less than desirable part of town doesn't matter: the meta of the national narrative dictates that St. Louis doesn't deserve the Rams.

San Diego is treated like the unfortunate child, with crappy parents who want to rip the team from the city and its an outrage. Oakland is treated with general ambivalence: they are almost the "also-rans" of this. But St. Louis is tasked with defending our city in almost every discussion.

It's mean spirited and I hate it.

Raiders fans have the same thing. Their fan base is divided between LA and Oakland.

 

[blue4]

Raiders fans have the same thing. Their fan base is divided between LA and Oakland.

Actually we've been assured repeatedly in this thread that the Raiders fan base in LA is miniscule and weak, hence why the Rams need to be the ones to go.

 

[OldSchool]

A little off the current Meta topic,but it is amazing to me how St. Louis is being portrayed both locally and nationally in almost every arena. Only St. Louis Rams fans have to put up with a portion of their fan base actively hoping and working to have the team leave the freaking city.

Team historical data over the last 10 years doesn't matter, an alienating owner doesn't matter, a dump of a stadium in a less than desirable part of town doesn't matter: the meta of the national narrative dictates that St. Louis doesn't deserve the Rams.

San Diego is treated like the unfortunate child, with crappy parents who want to rip the team from the city and its an outrage. Oakland is treated with general ambivalence: they are almost the "also-rans" of this. But St. Louis is tasked with defending our city in almost every discussion.

It's mean spirited and I hate it.

I understand what you're feeling and empathize. It's a brutal cycle going on right now. St. Louis people attack and marginalized LA and LA turns it around and returns the favor. LA attacks St Louis and marginalizes what is happening even though they've gone through it before and should know better. LA fans feel the team moving back is righting a wrong done to them 20 years ago. St Louis fans don't want to lose an NFL team again. The worst part is we're going to have to go through this for the entire season. Because even if a decision is made prior to that the NFL won't announce it and create even more of lame duck season.

Let's not pretend though that criticism is only leveled at people supporting St Louis. I really wish this was over and we could just enjoy football.

 

[blue4]

A little off the current Meta topic,but it is amazing to me how St. Louis is being portrayed both locally and nationally in almost every arena. Only St. Louis Rams fans have to put up with a portion of their fan base actively hoping and working to have the team leave the freaking city.

Team historical data over the last 10 years doesn't matter, an alienating owner doesn't matter, a dump of a stadium in a less than desirable part of town doesn't matter: the meta of the national narrative dictates that St. Louis doesn't deserve the Rams.

San Diego is treated like the unfortunate child, with crappy parents who want to rip the team from the city and its an outrage. Oakland is treated with general ambivalence: they are almost the "also-rans" of this. But St. Louis is tasked with defending our city in almost every discussion.

It's mean spirited and I hate it.

Exactly what I was trying to say earlier. Ironically, it's the Rams poor performance on the field that has brought this on in my opinion, seeing as how nobody talks smack about ST Louis when discussing baseball. It's like a tale of two cities. When you wear your red hat, everyone respects your town as a great sports city, you're the number one fan in the nation. Your stadium is located in beautiful downtown with the wonderful arch right there. Put on the blue one and you suck as fan, your city is crumbling, you have no jobs, and despite 20 years of proof to the contrary the long term outlook is cloudy. Maddening the difference in media coverage and social media between us and SD.