Nixon to discuss Rams stadium situation

[Thordaddy]

Think of the enormous home field advantage in November and December playing vs Seattle, SanFran and Arizona in the cold open air.

Good point but think of the home field advantage all year from the way a dome contains noise,Madden said the Ed was the loudest place he'd ever been during the GSOT days.

BTW good ta see ya.

 

[MerlinJones]

I think you can have an open air stadium and still have a lot of fan noise depending on how the stadium is constructed. A good example is Seattle's stadium, or the Univerity of Oregon's home field.

 

[MerlinJones]

I would prefer an open air stadium with lots of surface parking for tailgating much like Arrowhead.

As much as I dislike the Chiefs, I have to admit that tailgating at Aarowhead was always a really good time.

I'd love it if the Rams followed a similar model here in St. Louis. I think it would be a huge draw for the "casual" fans in the area.

 

[V3]

I think you can have an open air stadium and still have a lot of fan noise depending on how the stadium is constructed. A good example is Seattle's stadium, or the Univerity of Oregon's home field.

Yup, all you need is a good PA system.

 

[V3]

As much as I dislike the Chiefs, I have to admit that tailgating at Aarowhead was always a really good time.

I'd love it if the Rams followed a similar model here in St. Louis. I think it would be a huge draw for the "casual" fans in the area.

They need to design the parking lots specifically for tailgating. Have bathrooms out there, electrical outlets(might be able to set up a cost per kwh type thing if they're worried about costs), grassy areas for touch football, etc. Get creative to make going to a Rams game unique that even visitors envy.

That's a big reason I don't want it in the city. Put it in Fenton where there's TONS of room for those kinds of things.

 

[drasconis]

I tend to lean for a closed/retractable roof.
* For those of us who are older - the cold is tougher to deal with, havea friend taht takes his father inlaw, man loves the games...but he can't be out in 35 degree wet weather.
* It makes it nearly impossible to use for other events (concerts, etc)
* I would assume upkeep would be more costly, more wear and tear from elements (though you do not have cost of enviromental controls- not sure how much you have those actually on)
* gives you the option to play to your strengths (got a gun slinger close it up, defensive minded open it up)

At the end of the day think fan noise depends on the product on the field....

 

[LesBaker]

Dave Peacock was the single most important reason that the Rams stopped the London game fiasco.

The part that some are missing and was alluded to in the presser is that the public money is already allocated to the Ed Dome Bonds....they pay off in 2021. All that has to happen to finance the new stadium is to extend the life of the bonds by the state, city and county.

And yes I am semi retired from bulletin board wars but still very very active on twitter. So look me up there

Jimi

Nice to see you Jimi........and for what it's worth there are no wars here.

 

[LesBaker]

They need to design the parking lots specifically for tailgating. Have bathrooms out there, electrical outlets(might be able to set up a cost per kwh type thing if they're worried about costs), grassy areas for touch football, etc. Get creative to make going to a Rams game unique that even visitors envy.

That's a big reason I don't want it in the city. Put it in Fenton where there's TONS of room for those kinds of things.

All of those are excellent ideas. If ytou want fans to bring the kids give them a park like setting to use, wifi, even provide free footballs they have tons.

 

[Sum1]

They need to design the parking lots specifically for tailgating. Have bathrooms out there, electrical outlets(might be able to set up a cost per kwh type thing if they're worried about costs), grassy areas for touch football, etc. Get creative to make going to a Rams game unique that even visitors envy.

That's a big reason I don't want it in the city. Put it in Fenton where there's TONS of room for those kinds of things.

The rumored spot has more than enough space for all of that.

IMO, keeping it in the city and having that type of atmosphere is what would make it truly unique.

 

[Sum1]

I tend to lean for a closed/retractable roof.
* For those of us who are older - the cold is tougher to deal with, havea friend taht takes his father inlaw, man loves the games...but he can't be out in 35 degree wet weather.
* It makes it nearly impossible to use for other events (concerts, etc)
* I would assume upkeep would be more costly, more wear and tear from elements (though you do not have cost of enviromental controls- not sure how much you have those actually on)
* gives you the option to play to your strengths (got a gun slinger close it up, defensive minded open it up)

At the end of the day think fan noise depends on the product on the field....

Being outdoors has no effect on stadium sized concerts. Same with the general upkeep.

Further, a retractable roof does have it's limitations for indoor events.

The best solution for all events plus a city/region friendly budget would be an open air stadium plus upgrades at the current dome. Is that what the Rams want? That's the question.

 

[RamBill]

Nixon takes the first step to keep Rams
• Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_73bd4fc8-2174-50e2-9635-ae6722079dd0.html

Clear of the mid-term elections, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon on Wednesday launched the initiative to keep the Rams in St. Louis.

Nixon has put former Anheuser-Busch president Dave Peacock and prominent St. Louis attorney Bob Blitz in charge of a complicated, thorny mission. They'll have to formulate a legitimate plan for a new stadium and then sell that plan to the public. And the politicians that control public dollars.

That makes for a long mountain to climb before a new open-air football stadium becomes a reality in St. Louis.

There's a long way to go here, so Wednesday's announcement doesn't mean the Rams are staying in St. Louis forever and a day. To jump to that conclusion would be just as foolish as assuming the team is moving to Los Angeles.

Nixon didn't divulge much Wednesday. He wants to keep the Rams here. He wants St. Louis to remain an NFL city. He believes the Rams are an important presence in the community. He has a good relationship with Rams owner Stan Kroenke. Peacock and Blitz are the ideal leaders for this assignment. Nixon emphasized variations of those themes in his media conference call.

Few specifics were offered by the Governor, which is to be expected at this early stage. Nixon finessed away a question about a potential stadium location and responded to a question on funding by saying it would a partnership. Nixon was referring to the NFL venues that have been built on the combined investment made by the team owner, the NFL stadium-loan pool, and the local government/entities.

The details will come out in the wash later.

And resistance — and a spirited public debate — will undoubtedly follow.

The purpose of Nixon's conference call wasn't to unveil a stadium plan; that will happen fairly soon.

Wednesday's business was reserved for the simple but necessary matter of rolling out the names of Peacock and Blitz to establish the leadership on the project.

That's all we know — officially — right now.

But Peacock has been working unofficially on this difficult quest for quite some time, and I believe the save-the-Rams project is further along than what we're being told.

Nixon got it right in tabbing Peacock, who has excellent NFL connections through his years as leading marketing efforts and cutting massively lucrative sponsorship deals with the league.

Peacock has a positive longstanding working relationship with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. I don't believe it's a stretch to say they are friends; Goodell conveyed that sentiment to me in a dinner conversation about a year and a half ago. Peacock is no stranger to Goodell and league executives. He's pretty wired in. Peacock was asked to serve on the Pro Football Hall of Fame advisory board.

Peacock also has friends and associates in high places in the St. Louis business community. He's familiar with the state's political terrain. The same applies to Blitz.

Here's my takeaway from Nixon's move:

1. As much as I'd like to put your minds completely at ease here, it can't be done. This on the surface is an encouraging development, but we have to wait this out to see if a legit stadium plan materializes ... a plan that has an actual chance to succeed. Anyone can display a drawing of a stadium to use for political cover. A drawing is worthless.

So that will be the first checkpoint: is this on the level, or just politics as usual?

The second phase: If there's a serious attempt to fund a stadium with extensive use of public money, it will set off a contentious debate among pro-stadium and anti-stadium forces.

But Peacock must believe it's possible to strike a deal; he wouldn't have gone down this road if he expected failure. And again, I believe Peacock and Blitz are familiar with the obstacles that await them.

2. This clearly buys St. Louis more time. As I have written many times, the NFL would be more lenient in allowing Kroenke to move if inertia set in and no effort was made to solve the long-term stadium issue here. But if this launch leads to a stadium plan being unveiled over the next couple of months — and I'm confident it will — then the NFL is highly unlikely to allow Kroenke to take the Rams elsewhere. This will effectively stop the clock on a move for the 2015 season.

To elaborate: the NFL rules on franchise relocation guidelines prevent an owner from running away with his team just because, well, you know, he feels like doing so.

Here's Article 4.3, section A of the NFL bylaws, and I've italicized the essential part:

"Because League policy favors stable team-community relations, clubs are obligated to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community."

And:

"If, having diligently engaged in good faith efforts, a club concludes that it cannot obtain a satisfactory resolution of its stadium needs, it may inform the League Office and the stadium landlord or other relevant public authorities that it has reached a stalemate in those negotiations. Upon such a declaration, the League may elect to become directly involved in the negotiations."

In other words ... even if the eventual negotiations between the Rams and the stadium task force reach an impasse, then the league will step in and try to help broker a deal.

So we're a couple of pretty significant stages away from Kroenke getting a green light to head to LA — if that's what he wants to do.

That's why Nixon's first good-faith step is an important development. As long as Peacock and Blitz and area leaders are working diligently toward a potential stadium resolution, the league can implement the bylaws to block Kroenke from fleeing.

Should anyone entirely trust the NFL to adhere to its own rules? Of course not. But just apply some common sense here. When is the last time the NFL allowed a team to move from a city that just committed to building a new stadium for the franchise? Answer: it's never happened.

But if the plan doesn't make it off the drawing board, if it's nothing more than a stunt, then the league will see it for what it is: a lot of flash, with no cash. A plan that's DOA. And that's when Kroenke can begin to make an earnest case for moving. For now, however, this action by Nixon slows the game down.

And if Peacock and Blitz can really get things going, they'll keep the NFL informed on their new-stadium progress and the people who run the league will know exactly what's going on here.

In this scenario, Kroenke won't be able to claim that St. Louis is ignoring the issue. He won't be able to sneak his way out of here. Again ... if that's his intention. Who knows what the guy is really thinking?

The initial move made by Nixon was only the first step of many. But it had to be taken. And as long as this wasn't a misdirection play, it was a step in the right direction.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

 

[drasconis]

Being outdoors has no effect on stadium sized concerts. Same with the general upkeep.

Further, a retractable roof does have it's limitations for indoor events.

The best solution for all events plus a city/region friendly budget would be an open air stadium plus upgrades at the current dome. Is that what the Rams want? That's the question.

I find that difficult to believe.

If you are having a big concert weather will be a big concern for an outdoor event. We aren't talking riverport where the stage and the big ticket payers are solidly covered. Sure you take the risk in the summer, but do you even consider it for late fall through early spring?

I do think that is why you want to keep the old dome around if you did do an outdoor stadium (but that makes the payback on the new place much lower....in theory), and I am not sure the older facility will draw like a brand new one. I will say that the at the end of the day we are tlaking about only a hand full of events at best each year (most general events/conventions would happily still use the old dome if there).

How does a retractable roof limit events (It doesn't seem to for any other stadium that I am aware of)?

How can it not affect upkeep costs. Anything left out will weather much faster (heck the UV alone is a major concern), I guess you can build around it...but that is a cost also. It may be that I do not understand what you mean by "genral upkeep" and I amy be thinking of items outside of that.

 

[V3]

The rumored spot has more than enough space for all of that.

IMO, keeping it in the city and having that type of atmosphere is what would make it truly unique.

Enough room for all the parking AND fields that people can use for touch football, picnic areas, etc? If true, that's very surprising to me. Just as long as it has the room.

 

[LesBaker]

Being outdoors has no effect on stadium sized concerts. Same with the general upkeep.

Further, a retractable roof does have it's limitations for indoor events.

The best solution for all events plus a city/region friendly budget would be an open air stadium plus upgrades at the current dome. Is that what the Rams want? That's the question.

SK will want his own building so what the city wants to do to the dome won't matter to him.

What do you mean by a retractable roof does have it's limitations for indoor events.

 

[Sum1]

I find that difficult to believe.

If you are having a big concert weather will be a big concern for an outdoor event. We aren't talking riverport where the stage and the big ticket payers are solidly covered. Sure you take the risk in the summer, but do you even consider it for late fall through early spring?

I do think that is why you want to keep the old dome around if you did do an outdoor stadium (but that makes the payback on the new place much lower....in theory), and I am not sure the older facility will draw like a brand new one. I will say that the at the end of the day we are tlaking about only a hand full of events at best each year (most general events/conventions would happily still use the old dome if there).

How does a retractable roof limit events (It doesn't seem to for any other stadium that I am aware of)?

How can it not affect upkeep costs. Anything left out will weather much faster (heck the UV alone is a major concern), I guess you can build around it...but that is a cost also. It may be that I do not understand what you mean by "genral upkeep" and I amy be thinking of items outside of that.

Most major stadium concerts are in outdoor stadiums already and are almost exclusively in the summer months.

Regardless of any new football stadium built the Edward Jones Dome will still be in operation as it is a part of the convention center and is used for many events that a lot of people don't realize.

The cleanup after events in outdoor facilities is typically less expensive.

Retractable roofs have certain weight and rigging limitations that most domed stadiums/arenas do not. There are ways around that but it isn't always a simple solution.


I am not going to say I am a structural engineer or a stadium expert by any means, but I work in live events, my company has been involved in most major events in St.Louis for the past 15+ years, and I also have a family member that has served as the Operations Director at numerous arenas, convention centers, etc. across the nation. Again, not an expert but I do have some insight on the matter.

 

[Sum1]

Enough room for all the parking AND fields that people can use for touch football, picnic areas, etc? If true, that's very surprising to me. Just as long as it has the room.

Here is an aerial view. Between Lumiere Casino and the I-70 bridge is the rumored space. A lot of what is there now is parking lots and vacant/eroding buildings. If you look to the left of Lumiere you'll see the dome. Obviously a new stadium would be similar in size to the dome, so you can get an idea of what the space there is like.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Is open-air really the best way to go? It's gotta be retractable roof IMO.

Also, I haven't seen this posted yet but it certainly applies to the situation:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinio...cle_d5a850ee-6dc8-52de-b626-1e32579eaf2c.html
Any public money for a new stadium is up to the voters
November 02, 2014 12:00 am
It was 10 years ago, on Nov. 2, 2004, that St. Louis County voters made history by approving a ballot proposal, Proposition A, that requires voter approval before any tax dollars can be spent on a sports stadium. It was approved by an incredible 72 percent — 346,019 voters cast "yes" votes.

Proposition A was put on the ballot by the initiative petition process. A diverse group of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party members, people of faith and veterans all came together and collected 35,000 signatures to get the proposal before St. Louis County voters. They previously used the initiative to put a similar proposal on the ballot in St. Louis in 2002, and it was approved by voters.

While many needs in this area go unmet, taxpayers are paying on the $720 million cost of the Edward Jones Dome and hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and forgone revenue for the St. Louis Cardinals' new baseball stadium. Yet now there is talk of building a new football stadium to keep the Rams in St. Louis.


Thanks to those who collected the signatures for the petitions, those who signed the petitions and those who voted for the ballot proposals, there will be no stadium funding from St. Louis or St. Louis County with tax dollars unless voters approve. The power is in the hands of the people — not the politicians.

Fred Lindecke • St. Louis County

Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums

This is really encouraging, actually. When the time of dread fills the city of losing this team, they'll show up in mass swarms to vote yes. I think you could say 600 million is a shoe in.

No way in heck does STL not vote to keep their team.

 

[moklerman]

Here is an aerial view. Between Lumiere Casino and the I-70 bridge is the rumored space. A lot of what is there now is parking lots and vacant/eroding buildings. If you look to the left of Lumiere you'll see the dome. Obviously a new stadium would be similar in size to the dome, so you can get an idea of what the space there is like.

What's the deal with the other side of the river? I'm not familiar with St. Louis so it seems strange to me that all of that river front property is undeveloped. Is that the county line or a nature preserve or something?

 

[moklerman]

Anyone have B/R? Just got a text saying that the Rams have set a Jan. 28th deadline for stadium lease.

 

[ChrisW]

don't forget they can get $200 Million in the G4 Loan from the NFL

The owner has to match that to get the G4 loan, doesn't he?